# Resolution to the Twins' Paradox

30 views

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 10, 2011, 1:02:57 PM6/10/11
to
Each resolution to the twins’ paradox comes in four stages. How long
each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its
hypnotic appetite is. The stages are:

**** Desperation

It must be very heart breaking for the Einstein Dingleberries to watch
their beloved SR getting shit canned. <shrug>

**** Hope

This is more like false hope because the Einstein Dingleberries just
cannot walk away from that pile of crap called SR. <shrug>

**** Zombism

Every day wishing for this hope is going to trig the mind to believe
in a false resolution. It does not matter how fucked up or stupid the
resolution is. As soon as the Einstein Dingleberries sink their teeth
into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them from SR.
<shrug>

**** Awakening

After a while, the scientist in their id will be knocking on their
consciousness. They will start to realize just how fucking stupid
they were with such zeal in their faith. <shrug>

**** Desperation

And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at
least three such cycles so far. <shrug>

**** Acceleration

This handwaving was first proposed by Born. Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar knew no better. So, the nitwit was the
champion as well. To this day, there are still quite a few idiots
still supporting this nonsense. <shrug>

**** Diagram

Some idiots thought the twins’ paradox can be resolved by drawing a
few lines in their so-called spacetime diagram. This resolution seems
to have the least amount of survival time. There are almost no idiots
following this one anymore. <shrug>

**** MathemaGics

Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform,

** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] = velocity of dt as observed by dt’ (primed frame)
** [s] = displacement vector of the observed

These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
a break in the symmetry.

** d[s]/dt = - [v]

The correct application in this case is

** d[s] = 0

Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage. However,
most of them have moved on to the next cycle. <shrug>

**** Pathlength

The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>

### Dono.

Jun 10, 2011, 1:09:45 PM6/10/11
to
On Jun 10, 12:02 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> spam<

### hanson

Jun 10, 2011, 2:08:08 PM6/10/11
to
"Karandash", aka "Dono", the Homo, was already
identified in 2007 (google for it) as being a
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG
wrote:

>
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
<spam>
>
"Dono" who "Dunno" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote <spam>
>
hanson wrote:
Kike "Dono", the loser, only knows how to be an
obese short old ASHer type 3, who creates
<http://tinyurl.com/Anti-Semitism-101> .
"Dono" never even had the guts nor balls to
heed the call of Ariel Sharon to go to Israel and
help his ilk. "Dono" is a dismal cowardly kike.
>
Now, "Dono" in view of your failures in physics, &
>
=={{ KW 1 : Dono 0, zero zilch, nil & nada}}==

### Dono.

Jun 10, 2011, 2:09:39 PM6/10/11
to
On Jun 10, 1:08 pm, "hanson - the shit eater" <han...@quick.net>
wrote:
> snip spam <

### hanson

Jun 10, 2011, 2:20:32 PM6/10/11
to
=={{ KW 2 : Dono 0, zero zilch, nil & nada}}==

### Dono.

Jun 10, 2011, 4:20:53 PM6/10/11
to
On a sunny day, 1:20 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> continued to suck
KW's dick

### hanson

Jun 10, 2011, 6:22:32 PM6/10/11
to
=={{ KW 3 : Dono 0, zero zilch, nil & nada}}==

### xxein

Jun 10, 2011, 7:18:20 PM6/10/11
to

xxein: So? Can you show us a solution or do you just complain?

### huhie

Jun 10, 2011, 1:21:42 PM6/10/11
to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>Each resolution to the twins’ paradox comes in four stages. How long
>each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its
>hypnotic appetite is. The stages are:

>**** Desperation

dude, get a job.

### William Hughes

Jun 10, 2011, 9:36:54 PM6/10/11
to
It is trivial to resolve the twin paradox. You just
pass a law saying that no twin can travel without
his or her partner. This would solve everything <shrug>

- William Hughes

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 11, 2011, 1:52:23 AM6/11/11
to

Can the self-styled physicists dispatch more intelligent Einstein
Dingleberries to these discussions on their behalf other than these
dick heads whose combined intelligence is no more than a single
amoeba? <shrug>

Perhaps, they are just too stunned when He can read their minds, or
they are too busy with their useless new quest on the clue He tossed
them. <shrug>

In the meantime, He believes it is time for the Relativity Play to
keep the sanity among the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

### 1treePetrifiedForestLane

Jun 11, 2011, 10:01:55 PM6/11/11
to
orbitting on some axis that is oriented at some angle
to the direction of relatavistic travel;
thank you.

### Paul Cardinale

Jun 17, 2011, 4:34:00 PM6/17/11
to
A paradox is something which, on the surface, seems to be a
contradiction, but upon closer examination turns out not to be one.
Anyone who can do high school level algebra, can apply the LT and show

Paul Cardinale

### Androcles

Jun 17, 2011, 5:04:16 PM6/17/11
to

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling imbecile.

### 1treePetrifiedForestLane

Jun 17, 2011, 7:32:17 PM6/17/11
to
the transform is not a contradiction;
it is just taking into account angular momenta
of atoms, but you don't have to think about it,
even though it is just quadratic equations.

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 18, 2011, 1:41:31 AM6/18/11
to
On Jun 17, 1:34 pm, Paul Cardinale wrote:

> A paradox is something which, on the surface, seems to be a
> contradiction, but upon closer examination turns out not to be one.

No, a paradox is a fallacy which is absurd that hopefully anyone would
have never observed. <shrug>

> Anyone who can do high school level algebra, can apply the LT and show

Ahahahaha... This comment is indeed very ignorant. There are several
version of this so-called high-school level algebra interpretation to
the Lorentz transform. Which one is BELIEVED by you? <shrug>

Hey, bigot, have you even read the post that you replied to? <shrug>

### Marvin the Martian

Jun 18, 2011, 4:13:05 AM6/18/11
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote:

> "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> news:99116a60-

> |A paradox is something which, on the surface, seems to be a |
> contradiction, but upon closer examination turns out not to be one. |
> Anyone who can do high school level algebra, can apply the LT and show |
> | Paul Cardinale
> |
> Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
> imbecile.

Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
"Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.

I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.

You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious belief
to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who understand
things that you never will understand --- like simple math.

### Androcles

Jun 18, 2011, 5:19:52 AM6/18/11
to

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:kbidnVs9u9-Mw2HQ...@giganews.com...
Oh, so Special Relativity by Shadowitz is different to Special Relativity by
Einstein.
There must be a thousand or more different Special Relativities out there by
now.
Fuckwits like you don't know the difference between multiplication and
division.

--
--
Predictions of relativity.

"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant--the velocity of
light in empty space." --Einstein

In agreement with bullshit:
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically,
of an infinitely great velocity" -- Einstein.

"We establish by definition that "the ``time'' required by light
to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel
from B to A."-- Einstein.

"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB", but tB-tA is 1/2(t'A-tA).

Hence tB-tA plays the part, physically, of half an infinitesimally
small duration of time.

Clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see clock A,no matter
how far apart they are they are synchronized, the light signals
between them play the part, physically, of taking half of an
infinitesimally small duration of time, which plays the part,
physically, of zero.

In agreement with experience:
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, it's a perfect clock.
In agreement with experience:
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, it's a perfect clock.

In agreement with bullshit:
"if one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve
with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting
t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled
clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow."- Einstein.

In agreement with Einstein's assumption:
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth, because "in accordance with definition
the two clocks synchronize if 0 = 0"-- Einstein.

In disagreement with the Principle of Simultaneity (A meets B when B
meets A):
Clock A meets clock B at dawn and clock B sees clock A arrive at noon.

In agreement with experience:
The dork Einstein plays the part, physically, of a deranged lying cretin.

### Marvin the Martian

Jun 18, 2011, 9:51:45 PM6/18/11
to
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:19:52 +0100, Androcles wrote:

> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:kbidnVs9u9-Mw2HQ...@giganews.com... | On Fri, 17 Jun
> 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote: |
> | > "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message | >
> news:99116a60-
> | fc39-4caa-886...@e16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... | > |A
> paradox is something which, on the surface, seems to be a | | >
> contradiction, but upon closer examination turns out not to be one. | |
> > Anyone who can do high school level algebra, can apply the LT and show
> | | > that the Twin Paradox is not a contradiction. | | > | Paul
> Cardinale
> | > |
> | > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling | >
> imbecile.
> | Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
> | "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox. |
> | I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement. |
> | You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious
> belief | to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who
> understand | things that you never will understand --- like simple math.
> |
> Oh, so Special Relativity by Shadowitz is different to Special
> Relativity by Einstein.

Nope. Same stuff. Both are based on the Lorentz transformation, which is
simply the transformation which holds Maxwell's equations invariant.

I thought you MIGHT be interested in a treatment of the subject that you
have a chance of understanding. My bad, I was wrong. You're not
interested. Reading a book on the subject you're ranting about gets in
the way of your ranting. :-D

The implications of that is that you're up against Maxwell's equations
and a massive amount of experimental verification. But you don't know
that and neither do the other anti-SR people. And that's why no one who
knows better takes you serious.

> There must be a thousand or more different Special Relativities out
> there by now.
> Fuckwits like you don't know the difference between multiplication and
> division.

There you go!

### Androcles

Jun 18, 2011, 10:26:50 PM6/18/11
to

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:6eydnYvm146sy2DQ...@giganews.com...

A massive amount of experimental verification that SR is crap:

Handwaving pig-ignorant fuckwits like you don't know the difference between
multiplication
and division.

### Marvin the Martian

Jun 19, 2011, 3:38:25 PM6/19/11
to

The muon, as you noticed, is moving, and the stationary lab frame is not,
relative to the lab frame (duh!).

So, in the lab frame, the muon's "clock" seems to go slower. That is
proven experimentally by a bunch of muon's with a half life of 2.2
microseonds having an observed half life of 64 microseconds.

Perhaps if you purged your language of words like "fuckwit" you would be
able to read and comprehend the rest of the English language. Really,
you've been on and on about SR because you were confused by that?!

LOL!

Look at it this way, if my watch is running slow, do I show up LATER, or
earlier at work? Take your time figuring that out, because you're saying
with a slow watch I'm going to show up earlier, and that's just wrong.

### Androcles

Jun 19, 2011, 4:50:15 PM6/19/11
to

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:9audnZtT0OSszWPQ...@giganews.com...

That's right.

|
| So, in the lab frame, the muon's "clock" seems to go slower.

Slower than 64 microseconds, but moving clocks run slow. So
it is already measured as slow.
Now time one that is standing still, you moron.

Handwaving pig-ignorant fuckwits like you don't know the difference
between multiplication and division.

LOL, you fucking imbecile.

### Androcles

Jun 19, 2011, 5:01:39 PM6/19/11
to

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:9audnZtT0OSszWPQ...@giganews.com...

|
| Look at it this way, if my watch is running slow, do I show up LATER, or
| earlier at work? Take your time figuring that out, because you're saying
| with a slow watch I'm going to show up earlier, and that's just wrong.

If your watch runs so slow that it stops you'll get to work in zero time
which means you ran FTL. FUCKWIT!
ROFLMAO!

### Marvin the Martian

Jun 20, 2011, 12:14:19 AM6/20/11
to
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:50:15 +0100, Androcles wrote:

< snip Androcles confusion about slower moving clocks >

> Handwaving pig-ignorant fuckwits

You know, for a troll, you're an offensive one.

You're not doing your argument any good. Are you trying to make a fool of
yourself?

You don't have a clue about SR, and you're not worth anyone's time trying
to educate.

### Androcles

Jun 20, 2011, 12:35:51 AM6/20/11
to

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

| On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:50:15 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| < snip Androcles confusion about slower moving clocks >
|
| > Handwaving pig-ignorant fuckwits
|
| You know, for a troll, you're an offensive one.

You know, for a Martian, you are a pig-ignorant fuckwit.
<restore Marvin's confusion about slower moving clocks>

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:9audnZtT0OSszWPQ...@giganews.com...
|

| Look at it this way, if my watch is running slow, do I show up LATER, or
| earlier at work? Take your time figuring that out, because you're saying
| with a slow watch I'm going to show up earlier, and that's just wrong.

If your watch runs so slow that it stops you'll get to work in zero time

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 20, 2011, 2:39:32 AM6/20/11
to
On Jun 18, 1:13 am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote:

> > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
> > imbecile.
>
> Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
> "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
>
> I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.

Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>

spacetime. <shrug>

Let’s see. According to the Einstein Dingleberries, Andro is 57 light
years old. Notice a light year is a unit of measuring distance.
<shrug>

> You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious belief
> to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who understand
> things that you never will understand --- like simple math.

Yeah, your math of claiming aging to a spacetime displacement is very
simple. It is the wild-ass assertion that you do not even
understand. <shrug>

Due to desperation, the self-styled physicists are getting dumber and
dumber from one generation to the next. <shrug>

The statement that explains the self-styled physicists cannot get
dumber the next generation seems to be always wrong. <shrug>

### Androcles

Jun 20, 2011, 3:35:53 AM6/20/11
to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

==============================================
I agree with most of what you say, Kinky, where we differ is your
insane undetectable mechanical ectoplasm which cannot permit fast light
emitted later to pass slow light emitted earlier, thereby making cepheids
and recurrent novae magical myths.

### hanson

Jun 20, 2011, 12:07:06 PM6/20/11
to

in message news:DLCLp.6160\$29....@newsfe08.ams2...

> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Jun 18, 1:13 am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote:
>

Androcles wrote:
>> > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling

>> > imbecile, Marvin.

>>
Marvin wrote:
>> Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
>> "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
>> I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.
>

KW wrote:
> Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
> For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> spacetime. <shrug>

> Letï¿½s see. According to the Einstein Dingleberries, Andro is 57 light

> years old. Notice a light year is a unit of measuring distance.
> <shrug>
>

Marvin wrote:
>> You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious belief
>> to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who understand
>> things that you never will understand --- like simple math.
>

KW wrote:
> Yeah, your math of claiming aging to a spacetime displacement is very
> simple. It is the wild-ass assertion that you do not even
> understand. <shrug>
> Due to desperation, the self-styled physicists are getting dumber and
> dumber from one generation to the next. <shrug>
> The statement that explains the self-styled physicists cannot get
> dumber the next generation seems to be always wrong. <shrug>
>

Androces wrote:
> I agree with most of what you say, Kinky, where we differ is your
> insane undetectable mechanical ectoplasm which cannot permit fast light
> emitted later to pass slow light emitted earlier, thereby making cepheids
> and recurrent novae magical myths.
>

hanson wrote:
Andro, not so fast with your "ectoplasmic allergy"
First define select and chose:
== If light consists of waves, then light needs a medium
by definition.... (for making waves in/of the medium)
== It light consists of energy packets (hf) then these
"balls" of light are ballistic and need no medium.
So what gives?

### herbert glazier

Jun 20, 2011, 12:26:30 PM6/20/11
to
On Jun 10, 2:20 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> Karandash", aka "Dono", the Homo, was already
> identified in 2007 (google for it) as being ahttp://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG

> wrote:
>
> Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <spam>
>
> "Dono" who "Dunno" wrote:
>
> Koobee Wublee  wrote  <spam>
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Kike "Dono", the loser, only knows how to be an
> obese short old ASHer type 3, who creates
> <http://tinyurl.com/Anti-Semitism-101> .
> "Dono" never even had the guts nor balls to
> heed the call of Ariel Sharon to go to Israel and
> help his ilk. "Dono" is a dismal cowardly kike.
>
> Now, "Dono" in view of your failures in physics, &
> the score board reads now:
>
> =={{  KW  2 :   Dono  0, zero zilch, nil & nada}}==

Hanson Twin going at c reminds me of you. "Brain dead." TreBert

### PD

Jun 20, 2011, 3:16:23 PM6/20/11
to
On Jun 20, 1:39 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 1:13 am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote:
> > > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
> > > imbecile.
>
> > Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
> > "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
>
> > I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.
>
> Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement.  In fact, it is very
> stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime.  <shrug>
>
> For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> spacetime.  <shrug>

Time is merely a component of spacetime. In natural units, space and
time even have common units, and there is certainly no physical reason
not to measure distance in seconds, so that a displacement in
spacetime will be measured consistently in seconds.

You could Google natural units if you can't find a Royal Minion to do
it for you.

The first few chapters of Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book on
Spacetime Physics deals specifically with this units issue.

### PD

Jun 20, 2011, 3:21:12 PM6/20/11
to

This makes no sense. The quantity dt is a time interval, not an object
or a point with a velocity.
Mathematics becomes mathemagic for those who do not know what the
symbols mean or what the quantities represent.

> **  [s] = displacement vector of the observed
>
> These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
> a break in the symmetry.
>
> **  d[s]/dt = - [v]
>
> The correct application in this case is
>
> **  d[s] = 0
>
> Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
> stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage.  However,
> most of them have moved on to the next cycle.  <shrug>
>
> ****  Pathlength
>
> The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
> for the mythical substance called proper time.  Although the scripture
> of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
> in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
> paradox.  So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> over time the awakening will eventually come.  <shrug>

I really don't know what the problem is. The twins puzzle is a
teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
regarding relativity. There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
equivalent experiment. It's plain that Your Royalness does not
understand any of them, but this is a problem with His Royalness, not
with relativity.

### hanson

Jun 20, 2011, 5:23:35 PM6/20/11
to
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
KW Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
**** MathemaGics
Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform,
** dtï¿½ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 ï¿½ v^2 / c^2)
Where
** [v] = velocity of dt as observed by dtï¿½ (primed frame)

>
Paul wrote:
This makes no sense. The quantity dt is a time interval, not an object
or a point with a velocity.
Mathematics becomes mathemagic for those who do not know what the
symbols mean or what the quantities represent.
>
KW Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
spacetime. <shrug>
>
Paul owrote:

Time is merely a component of spacetime. In natural units, space and
time even have common units, and there is certainly no physical reason
not to measure distance in seconds, so that a displacement in
spacetime will be measured consistently in seconds.
You could Google natural units if you can't find a Royal Minion to do
it for you.
The first few chapters of Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book on
Spacetime Physics deals specifically with this units issue.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahaha... So, whe you, Paul, take refuge into natural units
its ok but when KW does you says ... Different strokes?....
>
KW wrote:
The current cycle to the resolution of the twinsï¿½ paradox calls out

for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twinsï¿½

paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
>
Paul wrote:
I really don't know what the problem is. The twins puzzle is a
teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
regarding relativity. There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
equivalent experiment. It's plain that Your Royalness does not
understand any of them, but this is a problem with His Royalness, not
with relativity.
>
hanson wrote:
If it's a puzzle, then it's a problem, by definition.
If there's no contradiction in the TP, then why is
there a variety of ways needed to show resultS?...
You imply that there is more than 1 solution. Why?
>
show a solution/s, 1 or many, convincingly, so that the
Royalty can underhand it. A Good teacher like you
ought to be able to do that, don't you?...

about what was presented to him, he lamented in
his obsessive, obfuscatory way... just like you do
(and like we always do in court, to confuse to the
opposition and impress the jury)... ahahaha...

Thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahansom

### 1treePetrifiedForestLane

Jun 20, 2011, 10:05:30 PM6/20/11
to
there is nothing strange or difficult
except for Minkowski's ridiculous sloganeering
about mere phase-space, and the attendant obfuscation
of "lightcones," which are degenerate quadric surfaces.

Ninkowski was a good "Nd geometer," but
he put his pants on, one lightcone at a time,
like everyone else who tries to do the math.

(see his generalization of Pick's theorem e.g.,
whether or not it is ever useful.)

### Marvin the Martian

Jun 20, 2011, 10:40:21 PM6/20/11
to
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:39:32 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> On Jun 18, 1:13 am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote:
>
>> > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
>> > imbecile.
>>
>> Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
>> "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
>>
>> I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.
>
> Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> spacetime. <shrug>

Are those <shrug>'s supposed to make you look intelligent?

The spacetime displacement is:

tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)

if x = 0, the displacement is purely timelike. Which puts the lie to your
idiot's drivel and your silly <shrug>s.

Damn, you anti-SR people are assholes. You don't know what the fuck

### hanson

Jun 20, 2011, 10:59:13 PM6/20/11
to
Brian Quincy Hutchings" <QncyMI at netscape.net>
who is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity,
& who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head",
rasterspace", "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil in
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
where
||| Brian asked:" do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
but as
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
hanson wrote:
Then you, Brian. explain the TP, to KW, in such
a fashion that he will have no more doubts about it.
Do it without your loud mouthing buzz-wordery.
It is not impressive. It's not even pedagogic.

### hanson

Jun 20, 2011, 11:16:44 PM6/20/11
to

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
Damn, you anti-SR people are assholes. You don't
know what the fuck you're talking about.
>
hanson wrote:
AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
But Mar, == SR is short for STUPID RANT ==
Your cussing doesn't make SR right... No siree.
>
Why did you crank yourself, Marv?.... ahahaha...
What's in it for you?...... besides you expressing
able to make arguments that will convince others:
>
Maybe they simply do not to believe you but prefer
Einstein's own explainations... where
>
Einstein, in his own words, just a year before he
folded his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked
the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....
Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Italian friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
< http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein >
>
So, that then is the end of Einstein's infamous fantasy
career-journey which concludes, long last, with what
most enlightened folks have suspected for a long time,
if not outright from the start, that:
====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====
>
Einstein flagellated himself & came clean (1), after
he was used by the Zios for their own, to them then
noble political agenda. (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
>
GR/SR is a useless crock o'shit, save it being
"a Base", an "al Qaida", for Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter.. although AE said
not to do that.

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 21, 2011, 12:13:47 AM6/21/11
to
On Jun 20, 7:40 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:39:32 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> > stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> > For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> > spacetime. <shrug>
>
> Are those <shrug>'s supposed to make you look intelligent?

Why don’t you ask Ton Roberts? <shrug>

> The spacetime displacement is:
>
> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)

So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>

> if x = 0, the displacement is purely timelike. Which puts the lie to your
> idiot's drivel and your silly <shrug>s.

Cooking up laws of physics from your pot of alchemy is not cool.
<shrug>

> Damn, you anti-SR people are assholes. You don't know what the fuck

Where do they get these Einstein Dingleberries from? Were they born
out of the primordial cesspool of the fermented diarrhea of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 21, 2011, 12:15:36 AM6/21/11
to
On Jun 20, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 20, 1:39 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> > stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> > For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> > spacetime. <shrug>
>
> Time is merely a component of spacetime.

<shrug>

> In natural units, space and
> time even have common units, and there is certainly no physical reason
> not to measure distance in seconds, so that a displacement in
> spacetime will be measured consistently in seconds.

So, what is PD’s age in this natural unit (expecting a distance
measurement)? <shrug>

> You could Google natural units if you can't find a Royal Minion to do
> it for you.

Measuring time in distance is just stupid and wrong. <shrug>

> The first few chapters of Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book on
> Spacetime Physics deals specifically with this units issue.

Due to desperation, the self-styled physicists are getting dumber and

### Peter Webb

Jun 21, 2011, 12:18:13 AM6/21/11
to
You seem to know a lot about physics.

Perhaps you can help.

Imagine their are two identical twins. One stays on earth, whilst the other
travels to a distant star and returns, travelling at a constant 0.9c with
the round trip taking 20 years.

When the travelling twin is re-united with the stay-at-home twin, is the
travelling twin the same age as, younger than, or older than the
stay-at-home twin?

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 21, 2011, 12:26:37 AM6/21/11
to
On Jun 20, 12:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Once again, frame dt means the frame of reference that dt applies to.
Once again, a short cut in typing results in gross confusion among the
idiots. Are you really that dumb or just want to harass Him? <shrug>

> > ** [s] = displacement vector of the observed
>
> > These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
> > a break in the symmetry.
>
> > ** d[s]/dt = - [v]
>
> > The correct application in this case is
>
> > ** d[s] = 0
>
> > Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
> > stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage. However,
> > most of them have moved on to the next cycle. <shrug>
>
> > **** Pathlength
>
> > The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
> > for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
> > of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
> > in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
> > paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> > piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> > over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
>
> I really don't know what the problem is.

That is because you are so stupid. <shrug>

> The twins puzzle is a
> teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
> regarding relativity.

Lying is not teaching. <shrug>

> There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
> puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
> consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
> equivalent experiment.

All these varieties are total bullshit. A physicist cannot seriously
endorse all of them. <shrug>

> It's plain that Your Royalness

He actually had higher denomination for Himself not mere royalty.
<shrug>

> does not
> understand any of them, but this is a problem with His Royalness, not
> with relativity.

What is there to understand about bullshit? <shrug>

Which cycle in these so-called resolution to the twins’ paradox are
you stuck on? He thought PD endorses the pathlength nonsense, no?
<shrug>

### Androcles

Jun 21, 2011, 4:30:09 AM6/21/11
to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

On Jun 20, 7:40 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:39:32 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> > stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> > For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> > spacetime. <shrug>
>
> Are those <shrug>'s supposed to make you look intelligent?

Why don�t you ask Ton Roberts? <shrug>

> The spacetime displacement is:
>
> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)

So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>

===================================
Nah, it's an imaginary distance, the dingleberry has never
heard of dimensional analysis. It takes a real fuckwit to
subtract a square hour times a square speed from an acre.
Happy new solstice.

### PD

Jun 21, 2011, 9:57:56 AM6/21/11
to
On Jun 20, 11:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:39 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement.  In fact, it is very
> > > stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime.  <shrug>
>
> > > For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> > > spacetime.  <shrug>
>
> > Time is merely a component of spacetime.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > In natural units, space and
> > time even have common units, and there is certainly no physical reason
> > not to measure distance in seconds, so that a displacement in
> > spacetime will be measured consistently in seconds.
>
> So, what is PD’s age in this natural unit (expecting a distance
> measurement)?  <shrug>
>
> > You could Google natural units if you can't find a Royal Minion to do
> > it for you.
>
> Measuring time in distance is just stupid and wrong.  <shrug>

Natural units have been used by scientists for some time. You may want
to at least google them to find out what they are before you dismiss
something you know NOTHING about as stupid and wrong.

### PD

Jun 21, 2011, 10:05:45 AM6/21/11
to
On Jun 20, 4:23 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >
> KW Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **** MathemaGics
> Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform,
> ** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> Where
> ** [v] = velocity of dt as observed by dt’ (primed frame)

>
> Paul wrote:
>
> This makes no sense. The quantity dt is a time interval, not an object
> or a point with a velocity.
> Mathematics becomes mathemagic for those who do not know what the
> symbols mean or what the quantities represent.
>
> KW Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
> For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> spacetime. <shrug>
>
> Paul owrote:
> Time is merely a component of spacetime. In natural units, space and
> time even have common units, and there is certainly no physical reason
> not to measure distance in seconds, so that a displacement in
> spacetime will be measured consistently in seconds.
> You could Google natural units if you can't find a Royal Minion to do
> it for you.
> The first few chapters of Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book on
> Spacetime Physics deals specifically with this units issue.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahaha... So, whe you, Paul, take refuge into natural units
> its ok but when KW does you says ... Different strokes?....

KW didn't "take refuge" in natural units. Please look up what "natural
units" means.

>
> KW wrote:
>
> The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out

> for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
> of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging

> in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’

> paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> I really don't know what the problem is. The twins puzzle is a
> teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
> regarding relativity. There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
> puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
> consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
> equivalent experiment. It's plain that Your Royalness does not
> understand any of them, but this is a problem with His Royalness, not
> with relativity.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> If it's a puzzle, then it's a problem, by definition.

There are end-of-chapter problems in freshman physics textbooks, too.
They are there to provide practice and to teach. They do not imply
that there is an issue with the theory. They are there to TEACH the
theory.

> If there's no contradiction in the TP, then why is
> there a variety of ways needed to show resultS?...
> You imply that there is more than 1 solution. Why?

Because in physics, it is quite commonplace for there to be more than
one way to skin the cat. This is as it should be. You will, for
example, see Atwood machine problems solved by Newton's 2nd law, by
conservation of momentum, by conservation of energy, by Lagrangian
mechanics, by Hamiltonian mechanics. You were expecting physics to to
be so recipe-driven that there is one and only one way of figuring out

>
> show a solution/s, 1 or many, convincingly, so that the
> Royalty can underhand it.  A Good teacher like you
> ought to be able to do that, don't you?...

No, I don't believe that. There are some people, like KW, that are
more like table legs or pots of turkey stuffing than like reasonably
intelligent students. Some students fail in their courses. This is not
necessarily a reflection on the teacher. Sometimes it is just an
indication that the student is not cut out for the subject matter.

Or are you a believer in NCLB, hanson, and that it is the teacher's
obligation to prevent even the slowest students from failing?

### PD

Jun 21, 2011, 10:10:13 AM6/21/11
to

That is a rather silly nomenclature, but thanks for clarifying.

> Once again, a short cut in typing results in gross confusion among the
> idiots.

Yes, especially using a private nomenclature that is understood by

>  Are you really that dumb or just want to harass Him?  <shrug>
>
>
>
> > > **  [s] = displacement vector of the observed
>
> > > These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
> > > a break in the symmetry.
>
> > > **  d[s]/dt = - [v]
>
> > > The correct application in this case is
>
> > > **  d[s] = 0
>
> > > Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
> > > stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage.  However,
> > > most of them have moved on to the next cycle.  <shrug>
>
> > > ****  Pathlength
>
> > > The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
> > > for the mythical substance called proper time.  Although the scripture
> > > of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
> > > in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
> > > paradox.  So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> > > piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> > > over time the awakening will eventually come.  <shrug>
>
> > I really don't know what the problem is.
>
> That is because you are so stupid.  <shrug>

Or that it is you that still can't understand the same simple problem
that others have no difficulty mastering. Or is the Ego of Your
Royalness incapable of accepting such a possibility?

>
> > The twins puzzle is a
> > teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
> > regarding relativity.
>
> Lying is not teaching.  <shrug>

There is no lie. There are some students who simply fail.

>
> > There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
> > puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
> > consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
> > equivalent experiment.
>
> All these varieties are total bullshit.  A physicist cannot seriously
> endorse all of them.  <shrug>

Sorry, but they're really straightforward. It's a pity that, even
after explaining something *multiple ways*, you can't find even ONE
that you understand. Some students fail.

>
> > It's plain that Your Royalness
>
> He actually had higher denomination for Himself not mere royalty.
> <shrug>

Yes, I gathered that. I take that as a sign that you've not seen your
doctor lately.

### hanson

Jun 21, 2011, 1:43:37 PM6/21/11
to
Paul "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip Paul's obfuscatory & self-inditing crap> except for:

in physics, it is quite commonplace for there to be more
than one way to skin the cat. This is as it should be.
There are some people, like KW, that are more like table
legs or pots of turkey stuffing than like reasonably
intelligent students. Some students fail in their courses.
This is not necessarily a reflection on the teacher.
>
hanson wrote:
& that attitude of yours (& other Relativity proselytizers)
brought you the current and worsening situation of the
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Dingleberries-Plight>
wherein it says:
>
cit on --- :
== In the past century, theoretical physicists have rejected
causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions,
and reality in favor of fantasy.
>
If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and
Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma
(which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking) and it's most certainly
not because they make any sense. In fact, they have become
the measure by which we sanctify nonsense. The report warns
that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from
pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools.

== Today, schools have been forced to terminate programs,
because the science of physics is riddled with claims that
are as absurd as those of any religious cult. The are being
classified as "low producing".
Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and
physics departments at major universities with grand histories
in physical science are closing down for lack of interest.
cit off --- :
>
hanson wrote:
Some quick check also shows that Bavarian universities
have dropped Relativity to be a mandatory requirement
for graduate physics programs in,1996, 15 years ago.
>
sci.physics, sp.relativity & sp. research have become
loci of things that are now on the dust heap of history.
The days of "Einstein, Einstein ueber Alles", and the
notion that "Jewish shit don't stink" are the sound & the
markers on the graveyard of relativity physics...
>
Einstein's Twin has come home to roost... ahahahaha...
on a bed of Einstein Dingleberries, who keep on
worshipping Albert's sphincter, no matter what... ahaha...
FORTUNATELY, diehard Einstein Dingleberries will
keep hanging and dangling around and provide lots
of hilarious entertainment with Gedanken experiments.
>
Thanks for the laughs, you splendid fanatics... ahaha..
ahahahanson
>
PS:
You Dingleberries should have listened to Einstein,
who in his own words, just a year before he folded

his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked
the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....

Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Jewish friend Besso:

>

### PD

Jun 21, 2011, 1:52:58 PM6/21/11
to
On Jun 21, 12:43 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

> Paul "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip Paul's obfuscatory & self-inditing crap> except for:
>  in physics, it is quite commonplace for there to be more
> than one way to skin the cat. This is as it should be.
> There are some people, like KW, that are more like table
> legs or pots of turkey stuffing than like reasonably
> intelligent students. Some students fail in their courses.
> This is not necessarily a reflection on the teacher.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> & that attitude of yours (& other Relativity proselytizers)
> brought you the current and worsening situation of the
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Dingleberries-Plight>
> wherein it says:

Well, I notice that you make reference to your own op-ed piece, which
is propaganda unsupportable by factual analysis, other than perhaps

>
> cit on --- :
> == In the past century, theoretical physicists have rejected
> causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions,
> and reality in favor of fantasy.

Quantum mechanics doesn't reject causality. What it rejects is rigid
determinism, a classical notion that holds in approximation but is not
respected by nature as a whole. There are no contradictions in
physics; there are, however, teaching puzzles which still confuse some
people -- but these should not then be taken as more than the
confusion of those people. And hypothetical conjectures in science are
part of the business of doing science, and those are then put to
experimental test.

>
> If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and
> Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma
> (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking) and it's most certainly
> not because they make any sense.

But they DO make sense. Your objection, I take it, is that they do not
make sense TO YOU. This can be remedied by sufficient action and
initiative and personal investment. It is not a requirement of physics
that it makes sense to absolutely everyone. Those people that are
concerned about the public investment in physics, should by all means
reflect that concern by enhancing their personal time and effort
investment in understanding things properly.

> In fact, they have become
> the measure by which we sanctify nonsense. The report warns
> that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from
> pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools.
>
> == Today, schools have been forced to terminate programs,
> because the science of physics is riddled with claims that
> are as absurd as those of any religious cult. The are being
> classified as "low producing".
> Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and
> physics departments at major universities with grand histories
> in physical science are closing down for lack of interest.
> cit off --- :
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Some quick check also shows that Bavarian universities
> have dropped Relativity to be a mandatory requirement
> for graduate physics programs in,1996, 15 years ago.

Yes, and that's because special relativity is now incorporated into

### hanson

Jun 21, 2011, 3:12:04 PM6/21/11
to

"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
-- Paul "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
Paul wrote:
> <snip Paul's obfuscatory & self-inditing crap> except for:
> in physics, it is quite commonplace for there to be more
> than one way to skin the cat. This is as it should be.
> There are some people, like KW, that are more like table
> legs or pots of turkey stuffing than like reasonably
> intelligent students. Some students fail in their courses.
> This is not necessarily a reflection on the teacher.
>
> hanson wrote:
> & that attitude of yours (& other Relativity proselytizers)
> brought you the current and worsening situation of the
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Dingleberries-Plight>
> wherein it says:
>
Paul wrote:
Well, I notice that you make reference to your own
op-ed piece, which is propaganda unsupportable by
factual analysis, other than perhaps citing other
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.. you wish that were the case, Paul,
'don't you. What is cited are the EXPERIENCES
and hard facts of REALITY expressed by university
You should have grieved over the former's assessments
instead of cranking yourself over my tripe...
I gloat about that though, Paul... ahahahahaha.....

>
hanson CITED & wrote:
> cit on --- :
> == In the past century, theoretical physicists have rejected
> causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions,
> and reality in favor of fantasy.
>
Paul wrote:
<snip Paul's "hypothetical conjectures" crap>
>
hanson CITED & wrote:
> cit continued ---

> If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and
> Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma
> (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking) and it's most certainly
> not because they make any sense.
> In fact, they have become
> the measure by which we sanctify nonsense. The report warns
> that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from
> pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools.
>
> == Today, schools have been forced to terminate programs,
> because the science of physics is riddled with claims that
> are as absurd as those of any religious cult. The are being
> classified as "low producing".
> Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and
> physics departments at major universities with grand histories
> in physical science are closing down for lack of interest.
> cit off --- :
>
> Some quick check also shows that Bavarian universities
> have dropped Relativity to be a mandatory requirement
> for graduate physics programs in,1996, 15 years ago.
>
Paul wrote:
Yes, and that's because special relativity is now
>
hanson wrote:
AHAHAHAHA.. you are dreaming, Paul... It's
fact that Relativity has become part of the dust
heap of history... It doesn't matter that you olde
kacker(s) are crying now. You should have
heeded Einstein 50 years ago. See below:
hanson wrote:
> > I had an Adviser, like you Paul. Whenever he was
> > not sure > > about what was presented to him, he
> > lamented in his obsessive, obfuscatory way...
>: > just like you do, Paul

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 21, 2011, 7:15:43 PM6/21/11
to
On Jun 21, 6:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 20, 11:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > So, what is PD’s age in this natural unit (expecting a distance
> > measurement)? <shrug>
>

> > Measuring time in distance is just stupid and wrong. <shrug>
>
> Natural units have been used by scientists for some time. You may want
> to at least google them to find out what they are before you dismiss
> something you know NOTHING about as stupid and wrong.

He did not say all natural units are stupid, but using this natural
unit into the content of time or spacetime is just stupid and
infantile. <shrug> If you think it is kosher, you should have no
problems telling us your age in the natural units of spacetime,
right? <shrug>

### hanson

Jun 21, 2011, 7:15:42 PM6/21/11
to
Jail-bird G=EMCF^2" "Nazier" <<herbert...@gmail.com>
aka Hebe-Herbie Trebert Nazier, whose friend Eli Sharon,
aka El, determined that "herbert has the IQ of a "herb", to
which Hebe-Herbie said: "I have no formal education".
So therefore, 1st things first: Glazier, you are not "Jews".
You are a Kike & a Jail-bird who was in Sheriff Bob
Hansell's Jail where 6 deputies beat the shit out of you
for your domestic terrorism... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAH....
Now that we have your formal introduction behind us let
us belabor your Herbal Tripe here:
<
"Brain dead" TreBert"herbert glazier" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote

Hanson Twin going at c reminds me of you.
<
hanson wrote:
... and why is that so, Hebe Herbie, you splendid olde kacker?

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

### 1treePetrifiedForestLane

Jun 21, 2011, 7:47:33 PM6/21/11
to
there is nothing natural about "units of spacetime,
even though it mathematically tractable;
it is just Minkowski's silly slogans about phase-space,
which he ne'er had time to qualify.

so, folks get rolled by lightcones, or
teleported.

### Marvin the Martian

Jun 21, 2011, 8:54:20 PM6/21/11
to
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:13:47 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>> The spacetime displacement is:
>>
>> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)
>
> So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>

Actually, it always could be. In the old way of doing things, time in
units of length was i*c*t, and a tau that was imaginary was time-like.

You're parading the fact you're not just ignorant, but the Pope of
ignorance, <shrug>, where you pontificate on stuff you HAVE NO CLUE

What a loser. You're so utterly ignorant you don't even feel embarrassed

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 21, 2011, 9:07:25 PM6/21/11
to
On Jun 21, 5:54 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:13:47 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> The spacetime displacement is:
>
> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)
>
> > So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>
>
> Actually, it always could be. In the old way of doing things, time in
> units of length was i*c*t, and a tau that was imaginary was time-like.

This is total nonsense. What is your age in this imaginary number?
<shrug>

> [rest of personal insults snipped]

### Daryl McCullough

Jun 21, 2011, 9:08:58 PM6/21/11
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane says...

You are speaking complete gibberish.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

### Peter Webb

Jun 21, 2011, 9:15:04 PM6/21/11
to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Which does leave the problem of what the relative ages of the twins will be.

When re-united, will the travelling twin be younger, older, or the same age
as the stay-at-home twin?

Oh please, great physics expert, tell us what their relative ages will be
when re-united !

### PD

Jun 22, 2011, 11:16:45 AM6/22/11
to

"using this natural unit into the content of time or spacetime"?
Would you care to rephrase that using English?
Would you care to google "natural units" first?

### Koobee Wublee

Jun 22, 2011, 2:12:40 PM6/22/11
to
On Jun 22, 8:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > He did not say all natural units are stupid, but using this natural
> > unit into the content of time or spacetime is just stupid and
> > infantile. <shrug> If you think it is kosher, you should have no
> > problems telling us your age in the natural units of spacetime,
> > right? <shrug>
>
> "using this natural unit into the content of time or spacetime"?
> Would you care to rephrase that using English?
> Would you care to google "natural units" first?

Well, you are the one who claimed there is some sort of natural units
describing spacetime. What is it? What is your age in this natural
unit? Once again, you have no answers. You are just making up laws
of physics to suit your own zealous belief in SR and GR. <shrug>

Here are the scriptures of SR and GR:

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

<shrug>

### PD

Jun 22, 2011, 2:25:09 PM6/22/11
to
On Jun 22, 1:12 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > He did not say all natural units are stupid, but using this natural
> > > unit into the content of time or spacetime is just stupid and
> > > infantile.  <shrug>  If you think it is kosher, you should have no
> > > problems telling us your age in the natural units of spacetime,
> > > right?  <shrug>
>
> > "using this natural unit into the content of time or spacetime"?
> > Would you care to rephrase that using English?
> > Would you care to google "natural units" first?
>
> Well, you are the one who claimed there is some sort of natural units
> describing spacetime.

No, there are natural units that are used in physics *broadly*, not
just in describing spacetime. Again, are you incapable of googling

> What is it?  What is your age in this natural
> unit?  Once again, you have no answers.  You are just making up laws
> of physics to suit your own zealous belief in SR and GR.  <shrug>

Google it to see if I'm making it up.

### 1treePetrifiedForestLane

Jun 22, 2011, 3:07:05 PM6/22/11
to
QM says nothing of determinism;
you are refering to the popular reification
of the Copenhagen mystical school,
of the "probability amplitude,"
that thereby particles have this very mathematical nature,
so we have to worryabout virtual particles.

to put it another way,
how can you tell if an electrical charge
has been added to Schroedinger's cat's box?

hairs stick-out at the edges.