Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The twin paradox
64 views
Skip to first unread message
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 9:59:53 PM4/21/12
to
There is an inherent flaw with physics nowadays. It seems that the
great idea that Einstein contributed was the idea that an observer may
be transported at the speed of light along a path- and there may be a
"sense" that deals with mankind.
great idea that Einstein contributed was the idea that an observer may
be transported at the speed of light along a path- and there may be a
"sense" that deals with mankind.
YBM
Apr 21, 2012, 10:26:15 PM4/21/12
to
Le 22.04.2012 03:59, John Gogo a écrit :
> There is an inherent flaw with physics nowadays. It seems that the
> great idea that Einstein contributed was the idea that an observer may
> be transported at the speed of light along a path
There is no such thing as an observer travelling at the speed of light
> There is an inherent flaw with physics nowadays. It seems that the
> great idea that Einstein contributed was the idea that an observer may
> be transported at the speed of light along a path
in Relativity. Especially not in the twin paradox.
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 10:20:13 PM4/21/12
to
ideas- and within these confines we produce our math.
YBM
Apr 21, 2012, 10:33:18 PM4/21/12
to
experience. Not much math there to produce though.
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 10:36:13 PM4/21/12
to
On Apr 21, 9:33 pm, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Le 22.04.2012 04:20, John Gogo a crit :
Well, life doesn't always have to do with the math does it?
> Le 22.04.2012 04:20, John Gogo a crit :
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 10:02:58 PM4/21/12
to
On Apr 21, 8:59 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
experiments which do not reflect reality.
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 10:29:34 PM4/21/12
to
returns--isn't that the jist of it?
YBM
Apr 21, 2012, 11:00:33 PM4/21/12
to
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 10:48:35 PM4/21/12
to
YBM
Apr 21, 2012, 11:02:53 PM4/21/12
to
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 11:28:14 PM4/21/12
to
way speed of light.
John Gogo
Apr 21, 2012, 11:23:58 PM4/21/12
to
John Gogo
Apr 22, 2012, 12:07:54 AM4/22/12
to
the speed of light is inferior.
YBM
Apr 22, 2012, 12:26:13 AM4/22/12
to
xxein
Apr 22, 2012, 2:32:31 AM4/22/12
to
question).
Define your exact problem in another way. A real example? Narrow it
to twins? Can we measure the one-way speed of light directly? What
can we measure about light?
The short answer is that all measurement is relative because we can't
find the absolute. But we can derive c out of it. It's a nice trick
but nobody understands the reality of it.
MM, P-R, twins, Pioneer? It all has a real solution if you
investigate it logically for maybe 30 years or so.
I deal with relativity and cosmology. A little with double-slit,
quantum, and dismiss parallel universes and made up stuff like that.
And although I can realize the idea of a curved space-time, it's
thought genesis and description is far from being right. It's like
watching a clown take the costume and all the make-up off and seeing
him on the street with his wife and kids.
Do you want to know how Einstein was both right and wrong about the
bending of light in gravity? Ask me. But for right now, I need to go
to bed and sleep with my family of pit bulls.
I've got answers that would have made even Einstein want to find out
about.
Message has been deleted
ken...@att.net
Apr 22, 2012, 9:04:35 AM4/22/12
to
invented RoS to resovle all the problems created by such postulate.
rotchm
Apr 22, 2012, 11:59:55 AM4/22/12
to
> The twin separates from his sibling- travels at the speed of light and
> returns--isn't that the jist of it?
theory that you think is SR.
The math of SR specifically excludes any matter from attaining a speed
of c.
Darwin123
Apr 22, 2012, 3:57:18 PM4/22/12
to
Obviously, an observer moving at the speed of light is not inherent in SR, flaw or not. SR is inconsistent with an observer moving at the speed of light or faster along a path.
Einstein also did not deal with extrasensory phenomenon. The psychologist Jung believed that humans were connected by some mystical "sense". However, Einstein did not hypothesize any senses that couldn't be simulated with some sort of electromagnetic or chemical technology.
Darwin123
Apr 22, 2012, 4:03:05 PM4/22/12
to
In most presentations, the traveling twin moves at a maximum speed that is slightly less than the speed of light. However, one twin CAN NOT travel at the speed of light relative to the other twin. Furthermore, one twin CAN NOT travel faster than the speed of light relative to the other twin.
Please go back to whatever reference you used and read it again. You have the twin conundrum very wrong.
Y
Apr 22, 2012, 9:11:00 PM4/22/12
to
have only required the twins to be in any different state of motion.
So far these experiments have been done with Jet planes etc...
It is possible to conceive of the experiment in terms of light though,
using a light clock, but this so far is an imaginary device.
Y
Apr 22, 2012, 9:17:31 PM4/22/12
to
Lorentz time dilation equation. But again, that's using a light clock.
Tom Roberts
Apr 23, 2012, 10:51:06 AM4/23/12
to
On 4/21/12 4/21/12 - 8:59 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> There is an inherent flaw with physics nowadays.
Say, rather, that there is a flaw in John Gogo's understanding of modern
> There is an inherent flaw with physics nowadays.
physics. The problem is personal to you (though many other people around here
share similar flaws).
> [... text showing his gross misunderstanding]
Tom Roberts
John Gogo
Apr 23, 2012, 4:17:38 PM4/23/12
to
light and return to make the comparison with their twin in practice.
John Gogo
Apr 23, 2012, 4:29:54 PM4/23/12
to
something that is not even real. To me it is a real waste of time.
rotchm
Apr 23, 2012, 5:05:59 PM4/23/12
to
> Tom, this is not even science- observers never travel at the speed
of
> light and return to make the comparison with their twin in practice.
Correct, just as predicted by SR.
of
> light and return to make the comparison with their twin in practice.
But observers are regularly sent *near* the speed of light (and
return) to make comparisons with their "twin".
The observed results are in agreement with SR.
You do know what "observers" mean, right?
John Gogo
Apr 23, 2012, 5:13:13 PM4/23/12
to
John Gogo
Apr 23, 2012, 5:21:11 PM4/23/12
to
On Apr 23, 4:05 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
near the speed of light?
John Gogo
Apr 23, 2012, 5:28:22 PM4/23/12
to
On Apr 23, 4:05 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
that a "light signal" is sent in a to and fro fashion- that this
signal signifies observer solely on the fact that we might be able to
place two theoretical eyes there- I disagree.
John Gogo
Apr 23, 2012, 6:12:39 PM4/23/12
to
supposed to occur until the speed of the phenomena approaches c so jet
planes are nil according to special relativity- right?
Koobee Wublee
Apr 23, 2012, 9:01:42 PM4/23/12
to
On Saturday, April 21, 2012 6:59:53 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> There is an inherent flaw with physics nowadays.
Invoking the Lorentz transform, the observed time dilation gives the notion of relative simultaneity and also a symmetric mutual time dilation. The manifestation is so obvious, but there have come scores of alMathematicians (those who can do rudimentary mathematics in a mechanical way without the capability of understanding the actual physics involved) who would fudge this and fudge that until someone discovered a way to resolve the twins’ paradox through the very Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> There is an inherent flaw with physics nowadays.
What is a transformation? A transformation including the Galilean, the Voigt, Larmor’s, the Lorentz, and Lorentz’s infinite transformations each involves two observers and one observed. The transformation describes the relationship between how each of these observers observes the observed. Basically in an application, you need to introduce as many transformations as there are to the observed. A transformation with its reciprocal is still the same transformation. It is just that simple. <shrug>
In the scenario of the twins’ paradox, there are two observers and two observed where each observer is observing the other one. An engineer would immediately identify that you need two transformations to complete the analysis, and the result is the very real paradox glaring back at you. On the other hand, an almathematician would use just one transformation and its reciprocal to fudge the result. It turns out that in the case of the Lorentz transformation, one can indeed show a non-existence of the twins’ paradox using the same transformation and its reciprocal. In doing so, this demonstrates how ignorant of the ones doing that of not even understanding the basics of physics. They are clueless as what the Galilean transform is. The sad part is that the self-styled physicists have bought into this nonsense in that past 100 years. Fvcking sad, no? <shrug>
The following link shows exactly how the mathemaGic trick is played out through this misapplication of the Lorentz transform.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics.relativity/1eWIUe5gZMM/Yf-2nu9pllUJ
<shrug>
rotchm
Apr 23, 2012, 10:35:13 PM4/23/12
to
> You are going to have to be specific here. What twin observer
travels
> near the speed of light?
An observer is any entity that can measure, compare.
travels
> near the speed of light?
The particles in accelerators near the speed of light are observers
since they are used to compare time intervals, decay rates etc.
John Gogo
Apr 24, 2012, 9:08:20 PM4/24/12
to
100 most promising advancements for the year 2011. Number 1 was the
faster than light story. In a sub-article written by Andrew Grant the
first thing he says is "Einstein's theory of relativity was rooted in
a simple thought experiment: What would happen if someone traveled
alongside a beam of light?"
Darwin123 are you saying Andrew Grant is misrepresenting Einstein's
theory of relativity concept?
John Gogo
Apr 24, 2012, 9:23:03 PM4/24/12
to
Tom Roberts
Apr 24, 2012, 9:33:07 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/12 4/24/12 8:08 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> In the January/February edition Of "Discover Magazine" discusses the
> 100 most promising advancements for the year 2011. Number 1 was the
> faster than light story.
Yes. I agree that was a high-ranking story, in terms of scientific interest. But
> In the January/February edition Of "Discover Magazine" discusses the
> 100 most promising advancements for the year 2011. Number 1 was the
> faster than light story.
it now appears that the initial measurement was in error. More measurements will
be made, by the OPERA group and by other groups; few (if any) physicists would
bet on another FTL result.
> In a sub-article written by Andrew Grant the
> first thing he says is "Einstein's theory of relativity was rooted in
> a simple thought experiment: What would happen if someone traveled
> alongside a beam of light?"
>
> Darwin123 are you saying Andrew Grant is misrepresenting Einstein's
> theory of relativity concept?
years Einstein referenced his schoolboy gedanken of "riding on a light beam",
and the fact that Maxwell's equations simply do not make sense for such an
observer. This certainly influenced Einstein's thinking on the subject. But it
is a VERY BIG STRETCH to go from that to saying SR was "rooted" in it -- so big
it is tantamount to being wrong [#].
[#] For the simple fact is that in SR it is impossible for any
observer to "travel alongside a beam of light". Such an
impossibility is a VERY IMPLAUSIBLE "root" of a theory.
Tom Roberts
John Gogo
Apr 24, 2012, 9:49:47 PM4/24/12
to
been trying to express is the fact that it is OK to theorize- but in
the end our theories must be demonstrated as truths- and if cannot
demostrate these abstractions- then they should be abandoned- not
become main stream subject matter. We have to be pracical- otherwise
our advancement will be slowed.
John Gogo
Apr 24, 2012, 9:52:38 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 8:33 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
paradox thought process?
Tom Roberts
Apr 25, 2012, 11:00:19 AM4/25/12
to
On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:49 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> For the most part I agree with you Tom but the main point that I have
> been trying to express is the fact that it is OK to theorize- but in
> the end our theories must be demonstrated as truths-
It simply is not possible to "demonstrate truths" about the world we inhabit.
> For the most part I agree with you Tom but the main point that I have
> been trying to express is the fact that it is OK to theorize- but in
> the end our theories must be demonstrated as truths-
The human condition prevents it. The best we can do is create models of the
world around us, and demonstrate the VALIDITY of those models. SR has been shown
to be an incredibly accurate and valid model of the world, throughout a rather
large domain of applicability.
> and if cannot
> demostrate these abstractions- then they should be abandoned- not
> become main stream subject matter. We have to be pracical- otherwise
> our advancement will be slowed.
as the atomic theory of matter, or the theory of evolution of life on earth.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Apr 25, 2012, 11:04:43 AM4/25/12
to
On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
> paradox thought process?
I have no idea what you mean or where you go this (it is unrelated to this
> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
> paradox thought process?
thread). Yes, many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
either errors or misconceptions. But the basic idea is solid, and has been
experimentally demonstrated -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
spacetime; two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
Tom Roberts
oriel36
Apr 25, 2012, 11:21:45 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 25, 4:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:49 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>
> > For the most part I agree with you Tom but the main point that I have
> > been trying to express is the fact that it is OK to theorize- but in
> > the end our theories must be demonstrated as truths-
>
> It simply is not possible to "demonstrate truths" about the world we inhabit.
> The human condition prevents it. The best we can do is create models of the
> world around us, and demonstrate the VALIDITY of those models. SR has been shown
> to be an incredibly accurate and valid model of the world, throughout a rather
> large domain of applicability.
>
Global warming modeling has been incredibly accurate in predicting
> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:49 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>
> > For the most part I agree with you Tom but the main point that I have
> > been trying to express is the fact that it is OK to theorize- but in
> > the end our theories must be demonstrated as truths-
>
> It simply is not possible to "demonstrate truths" about the world we inhabit.
> The human condition prevents it. The best we can do is create models of the
> world around us, and demonstrate the VALIDITY of those models. SR has been shown
> to be an incredibly accurate and valid model of the world, throughout a rather
> large domain of applicability.
>
drought and flood,heatwaves and severe cold snaps and basically every
weather condition imaginable.The theory is so successful that
observational evidence of the same location demonstrate how accurate
predictions of floods/drought are -
https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/8351/width237/3b257jdv-1330992521.jpg
From last month -
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/03/02/3088049/art-dam-420x0.jpg
Global warming is related to relativity in that there are such people
as science fiction deniers ,some more and some less,who recognize a
science fiction on an industrial scale with all the same sky blue
confidence of groupthink.Relativity is not even an issue,merely a
symptom of a bigger issue.
There are people who treat relativists and opponents like house
pets,keep you around so they can pretend that it is not all about
consumerist technology even when it is.
John Gogo
Apr 25, 2012, 9:47:03 PM4/25/12
to
speed of light like the twin paradox example. The fact that when we
separate clocks in the real world and rejoin them to find that their
individual measures differ has nothing to do with the twin paradox.
YBM
Apr 25, 2012, 9:51:15 PM4/25/12
to
Le 26.04.2012 03:47, John Gogo a écrit :
> On Apr 25, 10:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>
>>> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
>>> paradox thought process?
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean or where you go this (it is unrelated to this
>> thread). Yes, many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
>> either errors or misconceptions. But the basic idea is solid, and has been
>> experimentally demonstrated -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
>> inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
>> spacetime; two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
>> can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
Are you dense, John? As it has been said to you numerous times in this
> On Apr 25, 10:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>
>>> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
>>> paradox thought process?
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean or where you go this (it is unrelated to this
>> thread). Yes, many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
>> either errors or misconceptions. But the basic idea is solid, and has been
>> experimentally demonstrated -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
>> inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
>> spacetime; two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
>> can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
thread, in the twin paradox though experiment THERE IS NO CLOCK reaching
the speed of light (with respect to what by the way ?).
John Gogo
Apr 25, 2012, 10:08:31 PM4/25/12
to
That's why Newton's equations hold good in the real world of the
unaided eye. If you have a jet who fly's a clock at high speeds and
at great speeds around the world and return that clock to find that it
has slowed- this can only be the cause of gravitational influences on
the clock and not a twin paradox.
YBM
Apr 25, 2012, 11:27:33 PM4/25/12
to
of your instruments.
Why don't you stop spitting nonsense day after day and begin to learn
about modern physics and real experiments?
John Gogo
Apr 25, 2012, 10:28:43 PM4/25/12
to
On Apr 25, 8:51 pm, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
YBM
Apr 25, 2012, 11:34:15 PM4/25/12
to
most experiments related to time dilatation. And there are not only
clocks, John, but particles in accelerators.
All of this in known for ages, John.
You seem a very deluded person, John, and a very ignorant too.
Paul B. Andersen
Apr 26, 2012, 5:51:14 AM4/26/12
to
On 26.04.2012 03:47, John Gogo wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>
>>> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
>>> paradox thought process?
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean or where you go this (it is unrelated to this
>> thread). Yes, many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
>> either errors or misconceptions. But the basic idea is solid, and has been
>> experimentally demonstrated -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
>> inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
>> spacetime; two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
>> can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
Why would you have the clocks to reach the speed of light?
> On Apr 25, 10:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>
>>> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
>>> paradox thought process?
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean or where you go this (it is unrelated to this
>> thread). Yes, many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
>> either errors or misconceptions. But the basic idea is solid, and has been
>> experimentally demonstrated -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
>> inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
>> spacetime; two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
>> can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
> The fact that when we
> separate clocks in the real world and rejoin them to find that their
> individual measures differ has nothing to do with the twin paradox.
Here is a simulation of the 'twin paradox':
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
A more real life variant of the 'twin paradox'
can be found here:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/Satellites.html
Select the scenario "Twin scenario - kind of"
and you will see the two satellites meet at
regular intervals. You can see what the clocks
will be reading. The green satellite will age
15.6 microseconds more than the red satellite
between each time they meet.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Androcles
Apr 26, 2012, 7:30:48 AM4/26/12
to
"Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote in message
news:jnb5qj$cgv$1...@news.albasani.net...
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/Satellites.html
>
> Select the scenario "Twin scenario - kind of"
> and you will see the two satellites meet at
> regular intervals. You can see what the clocks
> will be reading. The green satellite will age
> 15.6 microseconds more than the red satellite
> between each time they meet.
Time scale 10 minutes per second... Hilarious!
>
> Select the scenario "Twin scenario - kind of"
> and you will see the two satellites meet at
> regular intervals. You can see what the clocks
> will be reading. The green satellite will age
> 15.6 microseconds more than the red satellite
> between each time they meet.
Even funnier, A reaches the B before B reaches A.
Paul B. Andersen
Apr 26, 2012, 7:56:32 AM4/26/12
to
On 26.04.2012 04:08, John Gogo wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:51 pm, YBM<ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>> Le 26.04.2012 03:47, John Gogo a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 10:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>
>>>>> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
>>>>> paradox thought process?
>>
>>>> I have no idea what you mean or where you go this (it is unrelated to this
>>>> thread). Yes, many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
>>>> either errors or misconceptions. But the basic idea is solid, and has been
>>>> experimentally demonstrated -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
>>>> inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
>>>> spacetime; two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
>>>> can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>>> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
>>> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
>>
>> Are you dense, John? As it has been said to you numerous times in this
>> thread, in the twin paradox though experiment THERE IS NO CLOCK reaching
>> the speed of light (with respect to what by the way ?).
>
> Time dilation and length contraction don't occur until you near c.
They sure do, it's just a question of being able to
> On Apr 25, 8:51 pm, YBM<ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>> Le 26.04.2012 03:47, John Gogo a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 10:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/12 4/24/12 - 8:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>
>>>>> Tom, I sense that you are not necessarily a big fan of the twin
>>>>> paradox thought process?
>>
>>>> I have no idea what you mean or where you go this (it is unrelated to this
>>>> thread). Yes, many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
>>>> either errors or misconceptions. But the basic idea is solid, and has been
>>>> experimentally demonstrated -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
>>>> inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
>>>> spacetime; two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
>>>> can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>>> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
>>> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
>>
>> Are you dense, John? As it has been said to you numerous times in this
>> thread, in the twin paradox though experiment THERE IS NO CLOCK reaching
>> the speed of light (with respect to what by the way ?).
>
> Time dilation and length contraction don't occur until you near c.
measure it, which we can with atomic clocks.
> That's why Newton's equations hold good in the real world of the
> unaided eye. If you have a jet who fly's a clock at high speeds and
> at great speeds around the world and return that clock to find that it
> has slowed- this can only be the cause of gravitational influences on
> the clock and not a twin paradox.
The 'twin paradox' is that the proper time of two clocks
travelling between the same two events along different paths
in space-time, may be different. It doesn't matter if
space-time is flat or curved, it is still the 'twin paradox'.
Hafele & Keating did the experiment you describe:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Hafele.pdf
An idealised experiment to show how the calculations
are done can be found here:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/H&K_like.pdf
If you compare the clocks of the two aeroplanes,
you will see that the west going aeroplane aged 415 ns
more than the east going aeroplane.
Both planes were all the time at the same altitude,
so the difference can only be caused by their different
speeds in the non rotating frame, the gravitational
effect will be the same for both.
The east going plane move faster and ages less.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Androcles
Apr 26, 2012, 8:47:51 AM4/26/12
to
news:jnbd5h$rn8$1...@news.albasani.net...
Aha! A spherical cow!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
> On 26.04.2012 04:08, John Gogo wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 8:51 pm, YBM<ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>>> Le 26.04.2012 03:47, John Gogo a icrit :
>> On Apr 25, 8:51 pm, YBM<ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
Tom Roberts
Apr 26, 2012, 3:17:59 PM4/26/12
to
On 4/25/12 4/25/12 8:47 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
The "twin paradox" has no clock "reaching the speed of light". All that is
> Yes but practically we cannot get "two identical clocks" to reach the
> speed of light like the twin paradox example.
needed is that the clocks move fast enough so the difference between their
elapsed proper times is large compared to their resolution. For instance, for
the best atomic clocks, driving at highway speeds for a few hours is sufficient,
and an airplane trip round the world is more than sufficient.
Muons are unstable particles that implicitly contain a "clock" that governs
their decay (statistically). They have been used to construct an instance of the
"twin paradox" with speed ~ 0.9994 c.
> The fact that when we
> separate clocks in the real world and rejoin them to find that their
> individual measures differ has nothing to do with the twin paradox.
about are insufficiently precise to display the effect. But there are clocks
that are VASTLY more accurate, and in the real world one MUST account for this
effect if one has sufficiently high speeds and sufficiently good resolution.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Apr 26, 2012, 3:22:05 PM4/26/12
to
On 4/25/12 4/25/12 9:28 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> Undergoing extreme G-forces may tend to slow a clock even if atomic.
This depends IN DETAIL on the construction of the clock. A clock that is broken
is no longer a clock, but merely a pile of junk.
We KNOW that the internal clock that governs the decay of muons is unaffected by
accelerations of ~ 10^18 gee (1 gee = 9.8 m/s^2). That is a truly ENORMOUS
acceleration.
See the FAQ, the experiment of Bailey et al.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
Apr 26, 2012, 4:30:29 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 25, 8:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
> either errors or misconceptions.
Yes, such as the following misapplication of the Lorentz transform
> many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
> either errors or misconceptions.
demonstrates.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
The mistake is definitively pointed out in the following.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics.relativity/1eWIUe5gZMM/Yf-2nu9pllUJ
<shrug>
> But the basic idea is solid,
can easily be shown so and done for you in the above link. So, we
have no idea what you are talking about what this basic idea is. You
mean the stuff you have BELIVED IN? <shrug>
> and has been experimentally demonstrated
experimental observations of the twins’ paradox? Of course, we can
tell you that. It does not require an experiment to tell you that
flying pigs just don’t exist. You don’t have to spend a lot of money,
effort, and energy to look for a paradox. We don’t think you know
what you are talking about. <shrug>
> -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
> inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
> spacetime;
rate of time between two frames of references can be different, we
accept that. So, there is the flow rate of time of the observer, and
there is the flow rate of time of the observed which can be called the
local time. There is no proper time unless you are desperately trying
to spin more mysticism to perpetuate your religion of SR and GR.
<shrug>
Given the Lorentz transform below,
** dx” = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy” = dy
** dz” = dz
** dt” = ( dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
You can write down the following from the four equations above.
** c^2 dt”^2 – dx”^2 – dy”^2 – dz”2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2
Then, you can certainly write down the following.
** c^2 dt”^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2
In this case, dt” is the flow rate of time of “ frame or local time.
So, where is the proper time? It does not exist. <shrug>
> two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
> can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the
Lorentz transform. <shrug>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 26, 2012, 5:26:37 PM4/26/12
to
it's called, "conservation of angular momentum,"
or clockworkspiel, at relativistical velocities,
such as that in atoms.
I <shrug> the body electronic!
let's see what Nienstein999 says about the "paradox,"
Neinstein998; that's at least N guys,
bogged-down in quadratic equations.
> > two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
> > can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>
> Yes, and this proves SR piece of shit since SR is incapable of
> predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the
> Lorentz transform. <shrug>
thus:
deforestation (e.g.) causes much, much
more climate change (as well as CO2) than the incredibly skinny
absorptive
spectrum of CO2, compared to the swampcooler's (water).
but, why is that, given the similar shape of the molecules?... all
that
I can come-up with, later.
thus:
the primary such datum is the total difference
of insolation from equator to pole(s),
one to zero as a first approx., high noon on the equinox.;
hence, the total absurdity of the "hole" in the ozonosphere,
esp. considering that there are so mnay of them,
at any given time.
thus:
it's called that, by the Newtonians, of course. anyway,
it's amazing what you can do with that, or at any rate
with Kepler's three orbital constraints, and a lotta math,
even though the 3-body problem is not generally solved;
there was a conspicuous advance, though,
with the 4-body problem!
or clockworkspiel, at relativistical velocities,
such as that in atoms.
I <shrug> the body electronic!
let's see what Nienstein999 says about the "paradox,"
Neinstein998; that's at least N guys,
bogged-down in quadratic equations.
> > two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
> > can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.
>
> Yes, and this proves SR piece of shit since SR is incapable of
> predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the
> Lorentz transform. <shrug>
deforestation (e.g.) causes much, much
more climate change (as well as CO2) than the incredibly skinny
absorptive
spectrum of CO2, compared to the swampcooler's (water).
but, why is that, given the similar shape of the molecules?... all
that
I can come-up with, later.
thus:
the primary such datum is the total difference
of insolation from equator to pole(s),
one to zero as a first approx., high noon on the equinox.;
hence, the total absurdity of the "hole" in the ozonosphere,
esp. considering that there are so mnay of them,
at any given time.
thus:
it's called that, by the Newtonians, of course. anyway,
it's amazing what you can do with that, or at any rate
with Kepler's three orbital constraints, and a lotta math,
even though the 3-body problem is not generally solved;
there was a conspicuous advance, though,
with the 4-body problem!
Paul B. Andersen
Apr 27, 2012, 6:08:38 AM4/27/12
to
Sam Wormley
Apr 27, 2012, 10:43:46 AM4/27/12
to
On 4/26/12 3:30 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense which I
choose no to replicate.
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts the astronaut
in a *non-inertial frame*.
> Virginia Tech > College of Science > Physics Dept > Tatsu Takeuchi > Special Relativity > Lecture Notes > Section 15
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
choose no to replicate.
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts the astronaut
in a *non-inertial frame*.
> Virginia Tech > College of Science > Physics Dept > Tatsu Takeuchi > Special Relativity > Lecture Notes > Section 15
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
hanson
Apr 27, 2012, 12:51:37 PM4/27/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MsGdnRPzepI-LQfS...@mchsi.com...
>
Sam wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense
which I, Wormley, choose no to replicate.
Sam wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense
>
because in here, Sam says, it shows that
<http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif>
Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts
the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*.
>
hanson wrote:
Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts
the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*.
>
Sam, all this Einstein crap, for which you proselytize
here again, would be tolerable if you where to
preface it by saying that it simply reflect your beliefs
and your mental masturbations in your daily session
during which you worship Albert's sphincter.
>
But if you don't acknowledge that,Sam, and you
insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then
post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so
that he can be looked at and checked out.
>
The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you
Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts
return from the International Space Station, after having
been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were
exposed to velocities & accelerations, that are not even
near anything that can be called relativistic, they all look
greatly aged, fucked up and need medical attention upon
return... and they are NOT at all in accord with your vision
what your SR/GR predicts. --- Are you senile, Sam?
>
Sam, even Einstein recanted and said that his SR/GR
'was crock o'shit. Do I have to repost Einstein's words
for you again?
Thanks for tthe laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 27, 2012, 3:08:12 PM4/27/12
to
what a strange universe you are in,
to have no angular mometum at organismal (astronautic),
molecular & sub-atomic scales;
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?
to have no angular mometum at organismal (astronautic),
molecular & sub-atomic scales;
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 27, 2012, 7:42:20 PM4/27/12
to
to get the 1/2 coefficient, apparently provided by Coriolis.
hanson
Apr 27, 2012, 7:55:36 PM4/27/12
to
|||Brian||| Quincy Hutchings" <QncyMI at netscape.net>
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:
>
||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS.
If you can't produce the address of Einstein's
younger twin, then why are you lamenting as
if you knew what's going on, only to put a
question mark at the end of your silly tripe.
>
Stay stuck in YOUR strange universe of " organismal
(astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales", that
is filled with your quaternions, which make you behave
like a dog that barks in the night at a distant noise he
knows nothing about.
>
Thanks for the laughs, though, you silly kvetch-kopp,
and keep on acting in your one-man street corner
performance on the side walk "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
in Santa Monica in front of Henry Waxman's office.
Meanwhile here is what we were talking about:
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:
>
||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS.
>
and so Brian wrote:
what a strange universe you are in, to have no
angular mometum at organismal (astronautic),
molecular & sub-atomic scales;
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?
>
>
hanson wrote:
and so Brian wrote:
what a strange universe you are in, to have no
angular mometum at organismal (astronautic),
molecular & sub-atomic scales;
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?
>
>
If you can't produce the address of Einstein's
younger twin, then why are you lamenting as
if you knew what's going on, only to put a
question mark at the end of your silly tripe.
>
Stay stuck in YOUR strange universe of " organismal
(astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales", that
is filled with your quaternions, which make you behave
like a dog that barks in the night at a distant noise he
knows nothing about.
>
Thanks for the laughs, though, you silly kvetch-kopp,
and keep on acting in your one-man street corner
performance on the side walk "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
in Santa Monica in front of Henry Waxman's office.
Meanwhile here is what we were talking about:
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 28, 2012, 7:47:12 PM4/28/12
to
jerkwater; thank you.
hanson
Apr 28, 2012, 9:03:07 PM4/28/12
to
Brian Quicy was chinzy on "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<Spac...@hotmail.com> but he got a stiffy in a jiffy
when he wrote:
" jerkwater; thank you."
>
hanson wrote:
Was it Green Waxman, or his 2 Enviro Whores, Boxer
and Feinstein, that made you produce cock-tears and
jerkwater, or something in here that excited you so,
like your inability to produce the address of Einstein's
Younger Twin... Read and pray tell:
But if you don't acknowledge that, Sam, and you
<Spac...@hotmail.com> but he got a stiffy in a jiffy
when he wrote:
" jerkwater; thank you."
>
hanson wrote:
Was it Green Waxman, or his 2 Enviro Whores, Boxer
and Feinstein, that made you produce cock-tears and
jerkwater, or something in here that excited you so,
like your inability to produce the address of Einstein's
Younger Twin... Read and pray tell:
insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then
post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so
that he can be looked at and checked out.
>
The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you
Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts
return from the International Space Station, after having
been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were
exposed to velocities & accelerations that are not even
post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so
that he can be looked at and checked out.
>
The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you
Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts
return from the International Space Station, after having
been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 30, 2012, 7:46:55 PM4/30/12
to
just give up on angular momentum,
like so many other Neinsteinmaniacs have.
the rest of us will just be envious,
hate-to-love-him admirers of the vast corpus,
as writ in _Einstein's Mistakes_.
like so many other Neinsteinmaniacs have.
the rest of us will just be envious,
hate-to-love-him admirers of the vast corpus,
as writ in _Einstein's Mistakes_.
hanson
Apr 30, 2012, 10:23:01 PM4/30/12
to
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
first produced "jerkwater", due to his fixation with
angular momentum, which made him get a stiffy in
a jiffy, but if was iffy because
first produced "jerkwater", due to his fixation with
angular momentum, which made him get a stiffy in
a jiffy, but if was iffy because
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 1, 2012, 1:51:07 AM5/1/12
to
atoms have angular momentum,
as do astronauts.
thus:
special relativity, implicitly if not explicity,
relies upon the relativistic effect of trying
to impose the "velocity" of light upon quanta
which are themselves relativisic internally,
viz angular momentum,
as developed by Dirac.
not that I comprehend his math;
it isn't really necessary to do that, since
the "twin paradox" and so on are merely quadratic exercises.
> True that both are magic.
thus:
there's an old paper in *Nature*,
"Rapid collapse of the Eemian interglacial, *sensu strictu*,"
G. Woillard's study of a peatbog in France;
that was the interglacial before "this one,"
the Holocene, if it isn't already over.
of course, a lot of folks just use the term,
Pleistocene, and forget about it.
thus:
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void would conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000.... like, wow,
that space is really flat; and, guess, What?
air's is, like, 1.00000004, because of the "curvature
of spacetime," y'think?
Blaise Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.
there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy"
and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense
about an absolute void, which has no substance to it;
no-one has ever found or created one, and
it is strictly impossible.
as do astronauts.
thus:
special relativity, implicitly if not explicity,
relies upon the relativistic effect of trying
to impose the "velocity" of light upon quanta
which are themselves relativisic internally,
viz angular momentum,
as developed by Dirac.
not that I comprehend his math;
it isn't really necessary to do that, since
the "twin paradox" and so on are merely quadratic exercises.
> True that both are magic.
thus:
there's an old paper in *Nature*,
"Rapid collapse of the Eemian interglacial, *sensu strictu*,"
G. Woillard's study of a peatbog in France;
that was the interglacial before "this one,"
the Holocene, if it isn't already over.
of course, a lot of folks just use the term,
Pleistocene, and forget about it.
thus:
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void would conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000.... like, wow,
that space is really flat; and, guess, What?
air's is, like, 1.00000004, because of the "curvature
of spacetime," y'think?
Blaise Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.
there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy"
and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense
about an absolute void, which has no substance to it;
no-one has ever found or created one, and
it is strictly impossible.
hanson
May 1, 2012, 3:03:55 AM5/1/12
to
Brian is drunk and loaded again, and sees things
that were nowhere in the post he responded to, like:
>> "True that both are magic." & "zero point energy"
>
Brian's behavior is not surprising though considering that:
Thanks for the laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
that were nowhere in the post he responded to, like:
>> "True that both are magic." & "zero point energy"
>
Brian's behavior is not surprising though considering that:
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 1, 2012, 11:14:23 AM5/1/12
to
true, and non sequiter, as you know, and
would say, if you were not so hyped
on bashing herr doktor-professor Albert;
anyone could have done what he did, but
he did it, anyway.
see _Einstein's Mistakes_ and cry about it.
would say, if you were not so hyped
on bashing herr doktor-professor Albert;
anyone could have done what he did, but
he did it, anyway.
see _Einstein's Mistakes_ and cry about it.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 1, 2012, 11:47:34 AM5/1/12
to
most emphatically you do not have to do that,
unless you care to add some context. anyway,
I wasn't drunk, you were an a-hole.
I didn't even notice your bogus argument
about the God-am astronauts, before,
because of your ridiculously automated posting "style."
> Do I have to repost Einstein's words for you again?
yeah, Einstien -- four Bronx cheers!
unless you care to add some context. anyway,
I wasn't drunk, you were an a-hole.
I didn't even notice your bogus argument
about the God-am astronauts, before,
because of your ridiculously automated posting "style."
> Do I have to repost Einstein's words for you again?
hanson
May 1, 2012, 6:05:28 PM5/1/12
to
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahaha... ROTFLMAO:
>
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
aka "Brian" is drunk and loaded again, so bad, that he
is in denial & indicts himself with: "I wasn't drunk, you
were an a-hole. yeah, Einstien -- four Bronx cheers!"
>
Brian's behavior is not surprising considering that:
Brian, keep up with your performance in your
one-man street corner act, on the side walk
of the very busy "1treePetrifiedForestLane",
in Santa Monica, in front of Henry Waxman's
office, where you do preach, for a living, your
splendid tripe above. You are a glaring case
of a _cyst_ who pretends to be a _physicist_.
Thanks for the laughs, Brian, you silly kvetch-kopp.
'was crock o'shit. Do I have to repost Einstein's words
for you again?
>
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
aka "Brian" is drunk and loaded again, so bad, that he
is in denial & indicts himself with: "I wasn't drunk, you
were an a-hole. yeah, Einstien -- four Bronx cheers!"
>
Brian's behavior is not surprising considering that:
Brian Quincy Hutchings" <QncyMI at netscape.net>
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:
>
||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS.
>
hanson wrote:
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:
>
||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS.
>
Brian, keep up with your performance in your
one-man street corner act, on the side walk
of the very busy "1treePetrifiedForestLane",
in Santa Monica, in front of Henry Waxman's
office, where you do preach, for a living, your
splendid tripe above. You are a glaring case
of a _cyst_ who pretends to be a _physicist_.
Thanks for the laughs, Brian, you silly kvetch-kopp.
for you again?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 3, 2012, 11:14:41 PM5/3/12
to
amen, and pass the God-am amunition.
> ||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
thus:
Vast amounts of natural CO2 continuously cycle through the atmosphere,
plants, soils, and oceans, and these natural fluxes have remained in
balance. Human-generated CO2 emissions are small compared to natural
fluxes but they are significant
> ||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
Vast amounts of natural CO2 continuously cycle through the atmosphere,
plants, soils, and oceans, and these natural fluxes have remained in
balance. Human-generated CO2 emissions are small compared to natural
fluxes but they are significant
hanson
May 3, 2012, 11:39:47 PM5/3/12
to
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahaha... ROTFLMAO:
>
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
aka "Brian" is drunk and loaded again, so bad, that he
is in denial & indicts himself with: "I wasn't drunk, you
were an a-hole. yeah, Einstien -- four Bronx cheers!"
while he equates "E=mcc is just an elaboration of
>
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
aka "Brian" is drunk and loaded again, so bad, that he
is in denial & indicts himself with: "I wasn't drunk, you
were an a-hole. yeah, Einstien -- four Bronx cheers!"
KE=mvv"... with "thus, wast amounts of natural CO2 "
>
Brian's behavior is not surprising considering that:
Brian Quincy Hutchings" <QncyMI at netscape.net>
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:
>
||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
Brian's behavior is not surprising considering that:
Brian Quincy Hutchings" <QncyMI at netscape.net>
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:
>
||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 4, 2012, 3:27:49 PM5/4/12
to
thanks for the hyuks, foo.
Darwin123
May 4, 2012, 3:35:39 PM5/4/12
to
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:08:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> Darwin123 are you saying Andrew Grant is misrepresenting Einstein's
> theory of relativity concept?
Maybe it is you misrepresenting the meaning of the words, "travel alongside."
The observer traveling alongside a light beam doesn't have to be traveling at
the speed of light, since the beam isn't moving at all. The wave fronts in the
light beam are moving at the speed of light. However, they are passing the
observer by.
It is like saying someone is walking alongside the train tracks. The
train itself can pass by that person. The person can't move at the same speed
as the train.
The word "alongside" here specifies a direction of motion, not a speed.
The tracks don't move any more than a beam of light moves. However, the train moves very fast, very much like the wave fronts in a beam of light are moving fast.
The observer can't go at the speed of light. Einstein said it again and
again. Therefore, there is sufficient context in his articles to say that
alongside refers to a direction not a speed.
Yes, Einstein and the other physicists of his time all knew about wave
fronts in light. The wave fronts in the light beam move at the speed of light n all reference frames. The "beam of light" is more like a track than the train.
> Darwin123 are you saying Andrew Grant is misrepresenting Einstein's
> theory of relativity concept?
Maybe it is you misrepresenting the meaning of the words, "travel alongside."
The observer traveling alongside a light beam doesn't have to be traveling at
the speed of light, since the beam isn't moving at all. The wave fronts in the
light beam are moving at the speed of light. However, they are passing the
observer by.
It is like saying someone is walking alongside the train tracks. The
train itself can pass by that person. The person can't move at the same speed
as the train.
The word "alongside" here specifies a direction of motion, not a speed.
The tracks don't move any more than a beam of light moves. However, the train moves very fast, very much like the wave fronts in a beam of light are moving fast.
The observer can't go at the speed of light. Einstein said it again and
again. Therefore, there is sufficient context in his articles to say that
alongside refers to a direction not a speed.
Yes, Einstein and the other physicists of his time all knew about wave
fronts in light. The wave fronts in the light beam move at the speed of light n all reference frames. The "beam of light" is more like a track than the train.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 4, 2012, 3:34:54 PM5/4/12
to
there's an old paper in *Nature*,
"Abrupt end of the Eemian interglacial, *sensu strictu*,"
G. Woillard's study of a peatbog in France;
that was the interglacial before "this one,"
the Holocene, if it isn't already over.
of course, a lot of folks just use the term,
Pleistocene, and forget about it; that's like,
that was the interglacial before "this one,"
the Holocene, if it isn't already over.
of course, a lot of folks just use the term,
old encyclopedias, often copied into online ones.
hanson
May 5, 2012, 1:00:10 AM5/5/12
to
aka "Brian" calls himself now "hyuks, foo" who is a
bi-polar drunk & loaded to his gills while he talks to
_himself_ about "peatbog in France, Snell's law &
"zero point energy" with "thus, wast amounts of
natural CO2 " in his retort to __The twin paradox__
bi-polar drunk & loaded to his gills while he talks to
_himself_ about "peatbog in France, Snell's law &
"zero point energy" with "thus, wast amounts of
natural CO2 " in his retort to __The twin paradox__
Kent
May 9, 2012, 6:34:35 PM5/9/12
to
ha-ha; you re the greatest dingelberry in Universe.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 10, 2012, 9:35:43 PM5/10/12
to
... although, Neinstein9999 claims to have read and
intertranslated teh German and English versions
of Einsteinmania; ask him about it.
intertranslated teh German and English versions
of Einsteinmania; ask him about it.
0 new messages