Rationale for contributing to sci.physics.relativity.

[Odd Bodkin]

"I watch television and go to bookstores, and I see shows and books
about famous physicists. They seem to be adored by the general public,
and seem to be able to generate a good living just by giving interviews
and public speeches where the audience is amazed by the things they say.
This seems to be so much more rewarding than my experience in life up to
now, where I had to work in a thankless job that I never once got
applause for. So I thought to myself, you're a smart guy, have always
been able to figure things out. SoI have decided to try to learn a
little about the cool parts of physics -- relativity, quantum mechanics,
dark matter, elementary particles. Pretty soon I will become conversant
enough in these things to amaze my friends with the things I know, and
who knows, maybe one day I'll amaze an audience and they'll give me
applause. I have taken a quick look at web pages and books about
elementary particles and quantum mechanics, but none of them try to
explain things at the level of a man on the street like me. So I've
given up on those topics, but relativity is different. There are lots of
books that try to explain relativity. I've read parts of a couple of
those books -- I paid good money for them -- but I can't seem to get
very far before I get to things that just don't make sense or I don't
believe or maybe are true but I can't follow the argument. This seems
very unfair, to say the least. It makes me feel small and incompetent. I
can't tell you how much I HATE feeling small and incompetent. I've had
too many people treat me that way already. So I have decided that one of
two things must be true. Either physicists don't want people like me
learning the subject so they make things deliberately obscure and
impenetrable, or there is something simply and obviously wrong with
relativity and there is no way to explain nonsense to anybody. Well,
since it's hopeless to learn relativity because of either of these
things, then I have to take an alternate approach. What I will do
instead is even better than learning relativity. I will invent my OWN
theory, one that sounds just as good as relativity. Most of the people I
will talk to don't understand relativity either (only ivory tower
physicists do, or at least they say they do), so they won't know any
better whether relativity or my idea is the right answer. And since I am
original, this makes me a vanguard, a gifted thinker, a physics pioneer.
Who knows, maybe I am right, and if I am, then people will someday make
TV shows and write books about me. This way I will at last be important,
though of course I will be humble about it."

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[John Gogo]

Mr. Bodkin this is all fine and well. The biggest game changer in the philosophy of physics will come simply from the evolution of our instruments. Our new and future devices will thrill and dumbfound us as history continues to repeat itself. It really does not matter what a few individuals think or say because mankind just seems to find a way to continue forward- now almost 8 billion strong.

[phili...@gmail.com]

I bet Bodkin is hoping to get saved by the aliens

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 2:31:32 PM UTC+12, phili...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I bet Bodkin is hoping to get saved by the aliens

https://www.facebook.com/HubbleTelescope/photos/a.10150837894494808.475232.119164799807/10153226253254808/?type=1&theater

We are Johnny-come-lately to our galaxy. Other civilizations have had a
5 billion year head start.

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/04/2015 7:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> "I watch television and go to bookstores, and I see shows and books
> about famous physicists. They seem to be adored by the general public,
> and seem to be able to generate a good living just by giving interviews
> and public speeches where the audience is amazed by the things they say.
> This seems to be so much more rewarding than my experience in life up to

<snip>

> original, this makes me a vanguard, a gifted thinker, a physics pioneer.
> Who knows, maybe I am right, and if I am, then people will someday make
> TV shows and write books about me. This way I will at last be important,
> though of course I will be humble about it."
>

I note that that was all in quotation marks. Did you intend to attribute it?

Anyway, if you, or anyone, figures out how to use a basic understanding
of physics to make some serious money, please advise.

Sylvia.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/10/15 4/10/15 10:58 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Anyway, if you, or anyone, figures out how to use a basic understanding of
> physics to make some serious money, please advise.

Sure. Use that basic knowledge to get into grad school and get a Ph. D. in some
field of physics. Use that knowledge to get a job in your chosen field. You can
also use that knowledge and experience to get a job in some other field; Ph. D.s
in physics are in demand, and there are many jobs looking for competent people
with such degrees. Moreover, the experience you gained in grad school will have
taught you how to find them.

It will probably take 10-15 years to go from basic knowledge of physics (~ B.S.
in some STEM field) to an annual salary approaching $100k. That is serious money
to me.

You won't get fabulously rich, unless you make some amazing discovery and manage
to cash in on it (the cashing in is MUCH more difficult, and is essentially
unrelated to physics). But you can make a very good living doing physics. I
certainly am.

(Wasting time around here is unrelated to that.)


Tom Roberts

[Rüdiger Schweitzer]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/10/15 4/10/15 10:58 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Anyway, if you, or anyone, figures out how to use a basic understanding
>> of physics to make some serious money, please advise.
>
> Sure. Use that basic knowledge to get into grad school and get a Ph. D.
> in some field of physics.

Not enough. The whole thing depends on recommendations, beside high
averages and so on. No recommendations, no PhD.

[Sylvia Else]

That involves much more work, and considerably less income, than I had
in mind.

I think the harsh reality is that if you have what it takes mentally to
be able to pursue that path, then there's much more money to be made by
exercising your mind in other directions.

That's not so say that the physics route is the wrong one to take, but
it needs to be recognised for what it is - a vocation rather than a road
to riches.

In the end, I think being any kind of employee is a mug's game.

Sylvia <---- Mug.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/11/15 4/11/15 11:00 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/04/2015 2:18 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 4/10/15 4/10/15 10:58 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Anyway, if you, or anyone, figures out how to use a basic
>>> understanding of
>>> physics to make some serious money, please advise.
>> Sure. Use that basic knowledge to get into grad school and get a Ph. D.
>> in some field of physics. Use that knowledge to get a job in your chosen
>> field. You can also use that knowledge and experience to get a job in
>> some other field; Ph. D.s in physics are in demand, and there are many
>> jobs looking for competent people with such degrees. Moreover, the
>> experience you gained in grad school will have taught you how to find them.
>

> That involves much more work, and considerably less income, than I had in mind.

Anything good takes time and effort.

> I think the harsh reality is that if you have what it takes mentally to be able
> to pursue that path, then there's much more money to be made by exercising your
> mind in other directions.

Perhaps. Success in the business world, which is the primary place vast fortunes
are to be made [#], takes VERY different skills than success in physics. This is
more than merely "mental", it involves one's complete outlook on life and the
world....

[#] There are also some criminal enterprises....


Tom Roberts

[phili...@gmail.com]

Software engineering in the private sector can go up to $300k in New York City but you better be good in solving problem at a high pace.

Physics requires a postdoct, you have less opportunities and you have to work during the weekends if you are a professor.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Likewise, success in science takes quite different skills than success as
an engineer, even an engineer (software) with a strong interest in science
such as myself. I actually *was* a scientist in academia, but eventually
became reconciled to the bitter fact that my skills and personality did not
lay in a direction that would offer me success.

Among other things, science as it is currently practiced is a *social*
activity. The lone scientist figuring out the secrets of the universe all
by himself is mostly a myth. (Yes, even for Einstein!) One makes friends
and keeps up with what everybody else in the field is doing, both through
one's connections and through dedicated constant reading of the literature.

Engineering can be practiced by the relatively socially inept, and one
solves most problems by applying a relatively limited set of tools. The
amount of reading and studying that one needs to do to keep up with
advances in an engineering field is nowhere comparable to that needed in
practically any branch of science. This is especially true in software
engineering. If I forget the syntax needed to, say, perform a cross-thread
operation in a WinForms c# application, I can do a quick google to get
my answer. In contrast to science, engineering involves mostly looking up
and applying known solutions to problems.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/12/15 4/12/15 11:21 PM, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>[...]

> Among other things, science as it is currently practiced is a *social*

> activity. [...]

Yes. Absolutely. The wannabes and poseurs around here, like Wilson, Seto,
Wublee, (and a host of others), don't recognize this.


Tom Roberts

[JanPB]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 9:00:24 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> I think the harsh reality is that if you have what it takes mentally to
> be able to pursue that path, then there's much more money to be made by
> exercising your mind in other directions.

From what I've observed the money thing doesn't work this way. There are
remarkably stupid people who are very good at making money and vice-versa.
IOW, one cannot just "exercise one's mind in other directions" at will.
To think otherwise is an extremely common fallacy (IMHO), the standard
example is to hire people well-known for some stupendous accomplishment X
to work on a project Y hoping for similar levels of excellence. It almost
never works.

--
Jan

[Koobee Wublee]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 9:18:21 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 4/10/15, 10:58 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> > Anyway, if you, or anyone, figures out how to use a basic understanding
> > of physics to make some serious money, please advise.
>

> Use that basic knowledge to get into grad school and get a Ph. D. in some
> field of physics. Use that knowledge to get a job in your chosen field.
>

> It will probably take 10-15 years to go from basic knowledge of physics
> (~ B.S. in some STEM field) to an annual salary approaching $100k. That
> is serious money to me.

Tom's got to be kidding. The salary for a lifeguard here on the beaches of southern California is over $100k plus $400+ of stipend for fvcking sun tan lotion. Do the lifeguards know even Newton's first law? Fvck no! If you really want to make money, getting a phd in physics is not a good approach. Try to be an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley or someone able to sell snake oil. <shrug>

> You won't get fabulously rich, unless you make some amazing discovery
> and manage to cash in on it (the cashing in is MUCH more difficult, and
> is essentially unrelated to physics). But you can make a very good living
> doing physics. I certainly am.

Studying physics is a very admirable thing to do, but the society does not reward accordingly so. It is like to be a monk devoted to the understanding of God / the universe. Koobee Wublee does admire these folks walking down such paths. However, Koobee Wublee is offended when these hypocrites try to make a cozy career just like the ancient priests defending a made-up religion at the expense of what science truly represents. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 9:21:19 PM, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:

> success in science takes quite different skills than success as an
> engineer, even an engineer (software) with a strong interest in science
> such as myself. I actually *was* a scientist in academia, but eventually
> became reconciled to the bitter fact that my skills and personality did
> not lay in a direction that would offer me success.

It does not matter how much interest one has over science. If it is not capable of understanding the subject mattered, oh well... Why did the ignorant raving crackpot decide to be a software engineer? Did it like to take order from other scientists to implement a certain algorithm? It is OK since 99.9+% of the population cannot identify usual algorithms to be implemented to make the society better. <shrug>

> Among other things, science as it is currently practiced is a *social*
> activity. The lone scientist figuring out the secrets of the universe all
> by himself is mostly a myth.

Or a crackpot. The best way is to understand as much science as possible to judge if such a person is indeed a sage or a crackpot. To some average someone who is able to shameless call itself a scientist, to distinguish so is innately impossible. <shrug>

> (Yes, even for Einstein!)

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a lair. The best way is describe Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a lair. The funny thing is that all physicists worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

> One makes friends and keeps up with what everybody else in the field is
> doing, both through one's connections and through dedicated constant
> reading of the literature.

Science should be a no place for politics. Even if you are the best cock sucker, the scientific communities ought not pay you any attentions, but Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was the best cock sucker in the world. <shrug>

> Engineering can be practiced by the relatively socially inept, and one
> solves most problems by applying a relatively limited set of tools.

This is totally nonsense. There has never been an instance where engineering relies on relativity --- not even GPS. <shrug>

> The amount of reading and studying that one needs to do to keep up with
> advances in an engineering field is nowhere comparable to that needed in
> practically any branch of science.

You must be living in a cave of some sorts. Technologies do advance faster than the imagination of an average Joe. Engineers have to keep up with new things to survive. In the meantime, self-styled physicists merely have to rely on myths created in the last 100 years to maintain their status quo. <shrug>

> This is especially true in software engineering.

Software engineers are driven by requirements handed down from someone who has a better vision. <shrug>

> If I forget the syntax needed to, say, perform a cross-thread
> operation in a WinForms c# application, I can do a quick google to get
> my answer. In contrast to science, engineering involves mostly looking up
> and applying known solutions to problems.

Dude, you are over-estimating yourself. When you want a mold to be made, a mode maker who is knowledgeable of metal chemistry as well as certain skills in shaping the metal has all the knowledge beyond you, a software engineer, to do that job. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 11:22:20 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> From what I've observed the money thing doesn't work this way. There are
> remarkably stupid people who are very good at making money and vice-versa.
> IOW, one cannot just "exercise one's mind in other directions" at will.
> To think otherwise is an extremely common fallacy (IMHO), the standard
> example is to hire people well-known for some stupendous accomplishment X
> to work on a project Y hoping for similar levels of excellence. It almost
> never works.

Yes, it is remarkable for someone such as Jan who programs z-transforms for a living dictated by someone else who is using Jan as a tool. <shrug>

[Y]

Hahaha...

True Sylvia.

Maybe you can work out how to send ultra high def signals for channel 9 ?

-y

[Y]

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 2:18:21 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/10/15 4/10/15 10:58 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > Anyway, if you, or anyone, figures out how to use a basic understanding of
> > physics to make some serious money, please advise.
>
> Sure. Use that basic knowledge to get into grad school and get a Ph. D. in some
> field of physics. Use that knowledge to get a job in your chosen field. You can
> also use that knowledge and experience to get a job in some other field; Ph. D.s
> in physics are in demand, and there are many jobs looking for competent people
> with such degrees. Moreover, the experience you gained in grad school will have
> taught you how to find them.
>
> It will probably take 10-15 years to go from basic knowledge of physics (~ B.S.
> in some STEM field) to an annual salary approaching $100k. That is serious money
> to me.

Pfft. I can make 30k in two weeks. You guys should do architecture. There's heaps more demand for making the worlds buildings.

-y

[Y]

Yeah but you don't honestly believe that the guys who get paid this actually solve any problems ? lol

Seriously. The only people making these biccies are in a sales role of some kind.

-y

[Y]

Which strangely enough, is exactly the business of Kaku. He sells string theory better than no other, and maintains a good funding base for this useless theory.

We're now even to believe that the scribing of circles, and thus pi, has strings attached. lol

-y

[Y]

And if you're wondering what market he's appealing to - it's the education market. Many are and have put their hands up to learn and pay to learn this otherwise useless theory. There is HEAPS of money in education. But there's also heaps of money in selling those lessons, and making them seem mysterious or interesting to the public.

If only Sylvia would bite her lip, and sell her education (sacred geometry) to the middle class 50 something female hippies of Sydney. lol

-y

[kenseto]

No science as it is currently practiced is not merely a social activity. We don't accept blindly the abstractions that physicists are feeding us. We want alternatives and that's what some of us are trying to do.

[rotchm]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 9:38:49 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> We want alternatives and that's what some of us are trying to do.

Hello sir, first time poster here... Do you have such an alternative? And if you do, do you have a working link to it?

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 6:45:10 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 9:38:49 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
> > We want alternatives and that's what some of us are trying to do.
>
> Hello sir, first time poster here...

But you have been at it for years, why the lying , Stephane?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/13/2015 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No science as it is currently practiced is not merely a social activity. We don't
> accept blindly the abstractions that physicists are feeding us. We want alternatives
> and that's what some of us are trying to do.

I don't think anyone is expected to blindly accept anything. I think the
expectation is that, if you're interested, you would do the work to
understand what physicists have put forward. If you find it hard to
understand, then there are books and classes which will make it easier
to understand. If you find the math to be hard, then there are books and
classes to help you learn the math so that it becomes second nature.

If you're saying that you want alternatives that don't require that kind
of preparation and work, then I don't think that's a realistic wish. You
might as well want to be able to fly a helicopter without flying lessons.

[kenseto]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 10:31:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/13/2015 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > No science as it is currently practiced is not merely a social activity. We don't
> > accept blindly the abstractions that physicists are feeding us. We want alternatives
> > and that's what some of us are trying to do.
>
> I don't think anyone is expected to blindly accept anything.

We don't accept constant light speed in all frames. We don't accept length contraction and mutual time dilation.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/13/2015 11:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 10:31:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/13/2015 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> No science as it is currently practiced is not merely a social activity. We don't
>>> accept blindly the abstractions that physicists are feeding us. We want alternatives
>>> and that's what some of us are trying to do.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is expected to blindly accept anything.
>
> We don't accept constant light speed in all frames. We don't accept
> length contraction and mutual time dilation.

Who are the "we" here? The thirty or forty cranks who don't read about
relativity but claim it has to be false?

You surely see that when you say you "don't accept" something you don't
understand, it's just really complaining that you don't understand it.

>
>
>> I think the
>> expectation is that, if you're interested, you would do the work to
>> understand what physicists have put forward. If you find it hard to
>> understand, then there are books and classes which will make it easier
>> to understand. If you find the math to be hard, then there are books and
>> classes to help you learn the math so that it becomes second nature.
>

So, why not go for books and classes?

[Recycle Bin]

Koobee Wublee wrote:

>> It will probably take 10-15 years to go from basic knowledge of physics
>> (~ B.S. in some STEM field) to an annual salary approaching $100k. That
>> is serious money to me.
>
> Tom's got to be kidding. The salary for a lifeguard here on the beaches
> of southern California is over $100k plus $400+ of stipend for fvcking
> sun tan lotion. Do the lifeguards know even Newton's first law? Fvck
> no! If you really want to make money, getting a phd in physics is not a
> good approach. Try to be an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley or someone
> able to sell snake oil. <shrug>

You mean to be a drop-out like Gates and the other guy, now dead? This is
why people are waking up hating capitalism. Makes no any sense. You have
your capabilities and stuff, just for doing what. You can't even compete
with money for nothing and money out of thin air. This is even more unfair
than it was at the time of Einstein. He was not stupid, I can tell you for
sure.

[phili...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 12:42:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/13/2015 11:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 10:31:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2015 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> No science as it is currently practiced is not merely a social activity. We don't
> >>> accept blindly the abstractions that physicists are feeding us. We want alternatives
> >>> and that's what some of us are trying to do.
> >>
> >> I don't think anyone is expected to blindly accept anything.
> >
> > We don't accept constant light speed in all frames. We don't accept
> > length contraction and mutual time dilation.
>
> Who are the "we" here? The thirty or forty cranks who don't read about
> relativity but claim it has to be false?
>
> You surely see that when you say you "don't accept" something you don't
> understand, it's just really complaining that you don't understand it.

That's what I thought: Bodkin takes pride and prestige from thinking he understands that "paradoxes are not paradoxes"

[Odd Bodkin]

As a passing comment, I found it interesting how many non-scientists on
this group scoffed at how low a figure $100k for an annual salary is,
and that other professions can make a whole lot more. I also find it
interesting that these are the same people who say that the government
is spending billions or trillions of dollars to pay physicists
extravagant salaries in a huge waste of taxpayer money.

Apparently the message from non-scientists to scientists is, "You get
paid waaay too much, and you don't get paid diddly-squat."

It's also interesting how many non-scientists would spend a significant
amount of time on a science-interest newsgroup to scoff at science and
the people who do it for a living. I wonder what it would look like if
they spent as much time hanging around a holistic-medicine discussion
group, saying "Holistic medicine is a waste of time. You guys are losers
wasting time talking about holistic medicine."

[rotchm]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:47:26 PM UTC-4, phili...@gmail.com wrote:

> That's what I thought: Bodkin takes pride and prestige from
> thinking he understands that "paradoxes are not paradoxes"

But paradoxes are not paradoxes, by definition(s) ! So even the definition of paradox is paradoxical. Can you state why?

[Odd Bodkin]

Careful! You're flirting with having your mind obstructed by something
Phil is going to do, so that you will not succeed and he will. You are
not being part of the solution to saving mankind.

[phili...@gmail.com]

Hahaha.

It should be a felony to teach Relativity.

[phili...@gmail.com]

Bodkin is acting like Gríma Wormtongue

[Gary Harnagel]

If you believe you're a wit, don't be half right.

[Y]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5:30:19 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/13/2015 7:23 AM, Y wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 2:18:21 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> >> It will probably take 10-15 years to go from basic knowledge of physics (~ B.S.
> >> in some STEM field) to an annual salary approaching $100k. That is serious money
> >> to me.
> >
> >
> > Pfft. I can make 30k in two weeks. You guys should do architecture. There's heaps more
> > demand for making the worlds buildings.
> >
> > -y
> >
>
> As a passing comment, I found it interesting how many non-scientists on
> this group scoffed at how low a figure $100k for an annual salary is,
> and that other professions can make a whole lot more. I also find it
> interesting that these are the same people who say that the government
> is spending billions or trillions of dollars to pay physicists
> extravagant salaries in a huge waste of taxpayer money.

I have never complained about the salaries that physicists get, because I didn't really know what they are.

> Apparently the message from non-scientists to scientists is, "You get
> paid waaay too much, and you don't get paid diddly-squat."

I think you're speaking too generally.

> It's also interesting how many non-scientists would spend a significant
> amount of time on a science-interest newsgroup to scoff at science and
> the people who do it for a living. I wonder what it would look like if
> they spent as much time hanging around a holistic-medicine discussion
> group, saying "Holistic medicine is a waste of time. You guys are losers
> wasting time talking about holistic medicine."

True.. This is not my experience though. In my experience the people who fight against science, have science wholly confused with the application of science. They blame scientists for atomic bombs, genetic engineering, DDT, plastics and automobile pollution, when in reality they ignore the people who are responsible for applying the science poorly. Typically themselves the consumer. As a designer, architect and design technology educator, I am quite aware that our group, the engineers the industrial designers who are secondarily responsible after the consumers themselves should be held more accountable to the failures of poorly applied science.

Scientists merely find out 'how' things work, and carry very little responsibility though. So who knows who should be paid more...? What is amusing though, is that the scientists usually get the stick for the blunders of designers. lol

-y

[Y]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5:30:19 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:

By the way, you seem to have my opinion of science wholly confused. I consistently defend what scientists do, and pass the blame of the worlds problems onto consumers and poor applications of scientific knowledge.


-y

[Y]

hahaha Acting like ? He's always been like that.

-y

[John Gogo]

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 11:21:19 PM UTC-5, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:

> On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 4/11/15 4/11/15 11:00 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> > > I think the harsh reality is that if you have what it takes mentally to be able
> > > to pursue that path, then there's much more money to be made by exercising your
> > > mind in other directions.
> >
> > Perhaps. Success in the business world, which is the primary place vast fortunes
> > are to be made [#], takes VERY different skills than success in physics. This is
> > more than merely "mental", it involves one's complete outlook on life and the
> > world....
> >
> > [#] There are also some criminal enterprises....
>

> Likewise, success in science takes quite different skills than success as

> an engineer, even an engineer (software) with a strong interest in science
> such as myself. I actually *was* a scientist in academia, but eventually
> became reconciled to the bitter fact that my skills and personality did not
> lay in a direction that would offer me success.
>

> Among other things, science as it is currently practiced is a *social*
> activity. The lone scientist figuring out the secrets of the universe all

> by himself is mostly a myth. (Yes, even for Einstein!) One makes friends

> and keeps up with what everybody else in the field is doing, both through
> one's connections and through dedicated constant reading of the literature.
>

> Engineering can be practiced by the relatively socially inept, and one

> solves most problems by applying a relatively limited set of tools. The

> amount of reading and studying that one needs to do to keep up with
> advances in an engineering field is nowhere comparable to that needed in

> practically any branch of science. This is especially true in software
> engineering. If I forget the syntax needed to, say, perform a cross-thread

> operation in a WinForms c# application, I can do a quick google to get
> my answer. In contrast to science, engineering involves mostly looking up
> and applying known solutions to problems.

You could have an undergraduate physics class based on one instrument. For instance, the oscilloscope. Each student would be given the instrument. Each student is now instructed to understand and improve on the instrument. To me, this would be the best class ever. And, I bet that the results will be stimulating.

[John Gogo]

If there were 30 students- I'll bet there will be 30 different points of view if they are all well educated.

[John Gogo]

Students should be given more autonomy to take their time in figuring things- while at the same time be given the experimental device at their convenience- so that the education will be more accountable by both the teacher and student. Historically, crucial experiments are very expensive- and the results are reported by the few privileged. Today, we enter the age where even novices will be able to conduct experiments and theorize about their ideas with affordable cost.

[John Gogo]

If the students continue to learn the oscilloscope- they will become 30 oscilloscope experts.

[John Gogo]

I remember taking and engineering class. On the first day the teacher explicitly said that only 20% would pass the class. This means one of two things:
1) that only 20% of the students are capable of learning the fine points of engineering
2) or that there are only so many spots in higher learning

[John Gogo]

We should not educate in terms of slots to fill. We should make the best curriculum for all- it will only make the free enterprise system better in the long run.

[John Gogo]

English class would consist of the articulation of the oscilloscope.

[John Gogo]

Harvard knows this.

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/04/2015 10:17 PM, Y wrote:
> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 1:58:06 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10/04/2015 7:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> "I watch television and go to bookstores, and I see shows and books
>>> about famous physicists. They seem to be adored by the general public,
>>> and seem to be able to generate a good living just by giving interviews
>>> and public speeches where the audience is amazed by the things they say.
>>> This seems to be so much more rewarding than my experience in life up to
>>
>> <snip>
>>> original, this makes me a vanguard, a gifted thinker, a physics pioneer.
>>> Who knows, maybe I am right, and if I am, then people will someday make
>>> TV shows and write books about me. This way I will at last be important,
>>> though of course I will be humble about it."
>>>
>>
>> I note that that was all in quotation marks. Did you intend to attribute it?
>>
>> Anyway, if you, or anyone, figures out how to use a basic understanding
>> of physics to make some serious money, please advise.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Hahaha...
>
> True Sylvia.
>
> Maybe you can work out how to send ultra high def signals for channel 9 ?
>
> -y
>

To what end, when even the existing capability isn't used?

Sylvia.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> As a passing comment, I found it interesting how many non-scientists on
> this group scoffed at how low a figure $100k for an annual salary is,

You are misinterpreting something as scoffing. <shrug>

> and that other professions can make a whole lot more.

Of course, do you not disagree? <shrug>

> Apparently the message from non-scientists to scientists is, "You get
> paid waaay too much, and you don't get paid diddly-squat."

Once again, you have misunderstood. Nobody is scoffing at how the ones who have called themselves scientists are making such a puny amount of money on paper. The issue is not the money. The issue is the knowledge base. With the so-called scientists' only goal to worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, even wasting a fvcking penny on them is a waste of money. <shrug>

> It's also interesting how many non-scientists would spend a significant
> amount of time on a science-interest newsgroup to scoff at science and
> the people who do it for a living.

So, how does a fine toy maker in its dream able to glue on this this newsgroup 24/7 non-stop? <shrug>

> I wonder what it would look like if they spent as much time hanging
> around a holistic-medicine discussion group, saying "Holistic medicine
> is a waste of time. You guys are losers wasting time talking about
> holistic medicine."

You really know how to make a professional worthless of its career. Well, medicine is not really science but statistics. Everything is not exactly repeatable but somewhat to mostly repeatable. For a griper, you should have known that. <shrug>

[Forehead]

On 4/9/2015 4:44 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> "I watch television and go to bookstores, and I see shows and books
> about famous physicists. They seem to be adored by the general public,
> and seem to be able to generate a good living just by giving interviews
> and public speeches where the audience is amazed by the things they say.
> This seems to be so much more rewarding than my experience in life up to

> now, where I had to work in a thankless job that I never once got
> applause for. So I thought to myself, you're a smart guy, have always
> been able to figure things out. SoI have decided to try to learn a
> little about the cool parts of physics -- relativity, quantum mechanics,
> dark matter, elementary particles. Pretty soon I will become conversant
> enough in these things to amaze my friends with the things I know, and
> who knows, maybe one day I'll amaze an audience and they'll give me
> applause. I have taken a quick look at web pages and books about
> elementary particles and quantum mechanics, but none of them try to
> explain things at the level of a man on the street like me. So I've
> given up on those topics, but relativity is different. There are lots of
> books that try to explain relativity. I've read parts of a couple of
> those books -- I paid good money for them -- but I can't seem to get
> very far before I get to things that just don't make sense or I don't
> believe or maybe are true but I can't follow the argument. This seems
> very unfair, to say the least. It makes me feel small and incompetent. I
> can't tell you how much I HATE feeling small and incompetent. I've had
> too many people treat me that way already. So I have decided that one of
> two things must be true. Either physicists don't want people like me
> learning the subject so they make things deliberately obscure and
> impenetrable, or there is something simply and obviously wrong with
> relativity and there is no way to explain nonsense to anybody. Well,
> since it's hopeless to learn relativity because of either of these
> things, then I have to take an alternate approach. What I will do
> instead is even better than learning relativity. I will invent my OWN
> theory, one that sounds just as good as relativity. Most of the people I
> will talk to don't understand relativity either (only ivory tower
> physicists do, or at least they say they do), so they won't know any
> better whether relativity or my idea is the right answer. And since I am

> original, this makes me a vanguard, a gifted thinker, a physics pioneer.
> Who knows, maybe I am right, and if I am, then people will someday make
> TV shows and write books about me. This way I will at last be important,
> though of course I will be humble about it."
>

I'm glad to see you're still here, Odd.
You probably don't remember me from
when I came here looking for answers
for questions I had regarding GR & SR.
I stayed about a week. You were helpful
to me. This was oh, about a year ago.
I'm back, not necessarily looking for
answers, but just lurking. Relativity
is a fascinating subject.

[kefischer]

You should have said, "glad to see
you're still odd, here. :-)

The above rant shows something
really odd, apparently it is the result
of reading too many psychology books.

It is definitely hypocritical,
wasting bandwidth discussing why
people waste bandwidth discussing
off topic to science and relativity.

[Y]

To the end of me getting ultra high def up converted source material to my TELLY ! That's what end :)

-y

[Sylvia Else]

You can't increase the resolution of source material, so your problem
relates to lack of high resolution source material, not to a difficulty
in sending it. If it were the case that Channel 9 had ultra HD material
that they were unable to send, the situation would be different, but
they do have ordinary HD material which they don't send even though
nothing is stopping them, so there's no reason to thing they'd want to
send ultra HD material even if they had it.

Sylvia.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Teaching puzzles are not paradoxes.

[Odd Bodkin]

Then the physicists have failed. Here's why:

1. Physicists who use the word "paradox" when they meant to use
"teaching puzzle" don't know how to use the English language and should
be fired.

2. There are people like Phil who have not learned from the teaching
puzzle, and therefore physicists have failed to successfully teach using
their own teaching puzzle, and therefore they should be fired.

3. Physicists are trying to make physics appear hard by throwing in
things that look paradoxical rather than making everything look easy,
and they do this to keep legitimate software engineers trying to save
the world from doing physics, and for that they should be fired.

[Dono,]

No. 3 is the best :-)

[Koobee Wublee]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 11:09:25 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Then the physicists have failed. Here's why:
>
> 1. Physicists who use the word "paradox" when they meant to use
> "teaching puzzle" don't know how to use the English language and should
> be fired.

You got that wrong again. A paradox was not meant to be a teaching puzzle but a red flag on something that is seemingly senseless, logically unacceptable, and self-contradictory. A paradox can either be a non-issue (just a misunderstanding) or a fatal contradiction. <shrug>

> 2. There are people like Phil who have not learned from the teaching
> puzzle, and therefore physicists have failed to successfully teach using
> their own teaching puzzle, and therefore they should be fired.

Koobee Wublee, Phil, Dingle, and others have turned every single rock of the Twin paradox over. The conclusion is that this paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else. <shrug>

> 3. Physicists are trying to make physics appear hard by throwing in
> things that look paradoxical rather than making everything look easy,
> and they do this to keep legitimate software engineers trying to save
> the world from doing physics, and for that they should be fired.

Physicists are just fvcking stupid not to be able to see the contradiction within the said paradox. <shrug>

[Odd Bodkin]

4. Physicists make it sound like it's only an apparent paradox, but it
sure looks paradoxical to some people who consider themselves omniscient
and the smartest people on earth, so the physicists' claim that it's not
a paradox is rejected. Any claim that they haven't understood it is also
rejected as a logical impossibility, because there is NOTHING these
folks don't understand.

[Koobee Wublee]

The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee Wublee and many others based on mathematical axioms. Odd Bodkin now is suggesting whatever physicists have said must be totally accepted without question. So, if they order Odd Bodkin to eat shit, Odd Bodkin shall comply. <shrug>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee Wublee and many others
> based on mathematical axioms.

Oh, that's really interesting. Which mathematical axioms have you used,
and can you show the proof?

> Odd Bodkin now is suggesting whatever physicists have said must be totally accepted without question.

Nah, I believe in questioning. I don't believe that if a physicist tries
to explain something and I haven't understood what he's said, then I
should say the physicist is full of shit. That would be the response of
a hostile megalomaniac and I have no desire to act that way. Instead, I
ask to have it explained a different way, and just about always that
results in something I now understand. Now, since you don't understand
what they've said when they explain how it's not a contradiction, what's
going to be your response?

> So, if they order
> Odd Bodkin to eat shit, Odd Bodkin shall comply. <shrug>

[Ernst Carpenter]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee
>> Wublee and many others based on mathematical axioms.
>
> Oh, that's really interesting. Which mathematical axioms have you used,
> and can you show the proof?

Wow, good one, so it depends on mathematics used.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/15/15 4/15/15 - 1:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 1. Physicists who use the word "paradox" when they meant to use "teaching
> puzzle" don't know how to use the English language and should be fired.

Hmmmm. YOU display insufficient knowledge of English.

The word "paradox" has several meanings, one of which is:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition
that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded
or true.

That is the sense of the word in "twin paradox" and the other "paradoxes" of
relativity. It is not used in the sense of "contradiction" or "problem" or "error".

While perhaps not the best way to phrase it, that nomenclature has become
entrenched historically, and is unlikely to change. Though some authors do call
it the "twin scenario".


> [... futher silliness]


Tom Roberts

[Ernst Carpenter]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> That is the sense of the word in "twin paradox" and the other
> "paradoxes" of relativity. It is not used in the sense of
> "contradiction" or "problem" or "error".

A paradox which is not a paradox is an absurdity. You must admit.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

I believe (or hope at least) that Odd was adopting Paul Andersen's strategy
of deliberately stating the opposite of what he really meant so as to
provoke a response.

I find Paul's frequent use of sarcasm and irony to be somewhat distasteful,
and wish he wouldn't resort to its use.

Then again, Google groups doesn't enable examination of message headers, so
I have no idea if perhaps we are dealing with an impersonator.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/15/2015 3:58 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/15/15 4/15/15 - 1:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 1. Physicists who use the word "paradox" when they meant to use "teaching
>> puzzle" don't know how to use the English language and should be fired.
>
> Hmmmm. YOU display insufficient knowledge of English.

Tom, sorry to upbraid you about this, but you completely missed some
satire here. Whooosh.

>
> The word "paradox" has several meanings, one of which is:
>
> a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition
> that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded
> or true.
>
> That is the sense of the word in "twin paradox" and the other
> "paradoxes" of relativity. It is not used in the sense of
> "contradiction" or "problem" or "error".
>
> While perhaps not the best way to phrase it, that nomenclature has
> become entrenched historically, and is unlikely to change. Though some
> authors do call it the "twin scenario".
>
>
>> [... futher silliness]
>
>
> Tom Roberts

[Ernst Carpenter]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 4/15/2015 3:58 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 4/15/15 4/15/15 - 1:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> 1. Physicists who use the word "paradox" when they meant to use
>>> "teaching puzzle" don't know how to use the English language and
>>> should be fired.
>>
>> Hmmmm. YOU display insufficient knowledge of English.
>
> Tom, sorry to upbraid you about this, but you completely missed some
> satire here. Whooosh.

What satire, you both are wrong. A paradox which is not a paradox is an
absurdity. Period.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:33:50 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Tom, sorry to upbraid you about this, but you completely missed some
> satire here. Whooosh.

I know what you mean, but the word "satire" is incorrect.

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/110233/irony-sarcasm-and-cynicism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardonicism

[JanPB]

Is there any reason why you cannot simply admit like a man that you don't
understand something rather than inventing a ludicrous theory according
to which all physicists on planet Earth are stupid?

--
Jan

[John Gogo]

Bells theorem could be considered a multiple scenario.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/15/15 4/15/15 4:33 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Tom, sorry to upbraid you about this, but you completely missed some satire
> here. Whooosh.

Not my fault. It is yours.

Satire and sarcasm do not come across in this medium. Verbally the tone of voice
can convey it, but not here.

You MUST indicate when you are being satirical or sarcastic, either with markup
like <sarcasm>...</sarcasm>, or with a similey :-). Or just don't do it.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 4/15/15, 4:33 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > Tom, sorry to upbraid you about this, but you completely missed some satire
> > here. Whooosh.
>
> Not my fault. It is yours.
>
> Satire and sarcasm do not come across in this medium. Verbally the tone of voice
> can convey it, but not here.

So, we all know each relativistic moron aka Einstein dingleberry is egoistic. It is their way or no way. When two such buffoons cannot agree, well, it is the issue of whose dropping does not stink more. It has nothing to do with what science says. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 1:23:26 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee
> > Wublee and many others based on mathematical axioms.
>
> Oh, that's really interesting.

You are a terrible liar! <shrug>

> Which mathematical axioms have you used, and can you show the proof?

For instance, the following are good starts for you. <shrug>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/1eWIUe5gZMM/Yf-2nu9pllUJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/zxk2dYMi5uc/5lFFSfJPEOIJ

> > Odd Bodkin now is suggesting whatever physicists have said must be
> > totally accepted without question.
>
> Nah, I believe in questioning.

The liar has not questioned anything against the piles of textbooks it is sitting on. <shrug>

> I don't believe that if a physicist tries to explain something and I
> haven't understood what he's said, then I should say the physicist is
> full of shit.

Koobee Wublee does not believe that either. <shrug>

> That would be the response of a hostile megalomaniac and I have no
> desire to act that way.

And Koobee Wublee also agrees with this one. <shrug>

> Instead, I ask to have it explained a different way, and just about
> always that results in something I now understand.

The problem is that you don't understand but pretend to understand after they have shown you signs of "what you don't believe in our bullshit?" <shrug>

> Now, since you don't understand what they've said when they explain
> how it's not a contradiction, what's going to be your response?

This is your misunderstanding. Just because you don't understand but pretends to understand and swallow all that shit does not mean Koobee Wublee abides in the same ethics. Koobee Wublee understands where the physicists have gone wrong and have pointed out exactly where they have gone wrong. The above two posts are a good start for you to chew on if you are indeed interested in why you have been swallowing shit just because your idols have told you to do so. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:48:12 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:47:41 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > A paradox was not meant to be a teaching puzzle but a red flag on
> > something that is seemingly senseless, logically unacceptable, and
> > self-contradictory. A paradox can either be a non-issue (just a
> > misunderstanding) or a fatal contradiction. <shrug>
>

> > [In the meantime,] Koobee Wublee, Phil, Dingle, and others have turned

> > every single rock of the Twin paradox over. The conclusion is that
> > this paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else. <shrug>
>

> > [With that said,] Physicists are just fvcking stupid not to be able to

> > see the contradiction within the said paradox. <shrug>
>
> Is there any reason why you cannot simply admit like a man that you
> don't understand something rather than inventing a ludicrous theory
> according to which all physicists on planet Earth are stupid?

There is nothing to admit. Koobee Wublee understands backed up by basic mathematical axioms that the Twin paradox can only be a contradiction just as Dingle being one of the first to have pointed it out. <shrug>

Since the mathematics, involved in identifying the Twin paradox is indeed a fatal contradiction to SR, is ridiculously simple, it is just mind boggling that the physicists cannot understand all that. <shrug>

So, it is all about the peer pressure shit. Almost 7 decades before the relativistic crap, the social psychology was already predicted in the fable "Emperor's New Clothes". Since the time of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, there have been relativistically few sages like Dingle able to point out the obvious fallacy. However, the physicists have continued their religious approach instead of executing a scientific one. They are either too dumb or too entrenched in corruption. Thus, Koobee Wublee has no problem in identifying them as stupid. <shrug>

These guys got into physics not for the money but to attempt to understand what science is all about, and yet, they had done the exact opposite to any scientific doctrine. After all, the lifeguards at the beaches in southern California make more than $100k plus generous stipend towards their expense in suntan lotions. Their education is very much limited to CPR plus riptide conditions. The common theme is that the lifeguards and physicists do not have to understand how the field equations are derived. <shrug>

As such, the Orwellian philosophy now runs deeply in their veins:

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NOISE IS COHERENCY
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS REALITY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONJECTURE IS THEORY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION
** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY

<shrug>

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee Wublee and many others
> > based on mathematical axioms.
>
> Oh, that's really interesting. Which mathematical axioms have you used,
> and can you show the proof?
>
> > Odd Bodkin now is suggesting whatever physicists have said must be totally accepted without question.
>
> Nah, I believe in questioning. I don't believe that if a physicist tries
> to explain something and I haven't understood what he's said, then I
> should say the physicist is full of shit.

The problem is that your (physicist's) explanation involve invoking further bogus assumptions.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:37:58 PM UTC-4, Ernst Carpenter wrote:

> What satire,

It was obvious it was satire.

> you both are wrong.

Both are right in their own respect. One must understand (and sometimes deduce) the meaning of the words used. Its like a puzzle!

> A paradox which is not a paradox is an
> absurdity. Period.

Nope. A paradox which is not a paradox is a paradox! Ha! Get it? Not only the last instance of the word 'paradox' refers to the first instance, it also applies to the whole statements... So many ways to interpret it!

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:06:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

> You MUST indicate when you are being satirical or sarcastic,

Noooo... that would be way to easy. Better not to indicate it and let us deduce it! It practices our senses and sharpens us...

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:5ddc57b4-2eb1-4505...@googlegroups.com...

|Is there any reason why you cannot simply admit like a man that you don't
|understand something rather than inventing a ludicrous theory according
|to which all physicists on planet Earth are stupid?

Is there any reason why you cannot simply admit like a man that you don't
understand something rather than inventing a ludicrous theory according

to which all except physicists on planet Earth are stupid?
Yes, there is a reason. You are a brainwashed, puffed moron. That's all.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/15/2015 6:48 PM, JanPB wrote:
> Is there any reason why you cannot simply admit like a man that you don't
> understand something rather than inventing a ludicrous theory according
> to which all physicists on planet Earth are stupid?

Because that is unacceptable.
One cannot refer to oneself with capitalized third-person pronouns AND
hold the possibility of not understanding something, simultaneously.

[Odd Bodkin]

Aha. I will henceforth have to add <humor>, <irony>, <satire>,
<poking-fun-at>, <wink-wink-nudge-nudge-say-no-more> tags to all my
posts for the benefit of those whooshed.

whoops, sorry, forgot. </sarcasm>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/16/2015 1:10 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> There is nothing to admit. Koobee Wublee understands backed up by basic mathematical axioms
> that the Twin paradox can only be a contradiction just as Dingle being one of the first to have
> pointed it out. <shrug>

What basic mathematical axioms did you have in mind?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/16/2015 1:33 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 1:23:26 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee
>>> Wublee and many others based on mathematical axioms.
>>
>> Oh, that's really interesting.
>

> You are a terrible liar! <shrug>
>

>> Which mathematical axioms have you used, and can you show the proof?
>

> For instance, the following are good starts for you. <shrug>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/1eWIUe5gZMM/Yf-2nu9pllUJ

And which mathematical axioms did you refer to in either of these posts?
I see an incorrect application of the Lorentz transformation in the post
above, where for example you are computing the dt21 (change in position
of #1 as observed by #2) but observer 2 is not at rest in an inertial
reference frame throughout the trip, which is a requirement of the
transform as you applied it.

So how is an incorrect application of a transform a mathematical axiom.

By the way, in looking at the follow-up replies to your post you linked,
it's plain that others have pointed out the same error.

Now, only a hostile megalomaniac would respond by saying, "Koobee Wublee
CANNOT be wrong. All the others must be wrong."

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/zxk2dYMi5uc/5lFFSfJPEOIJ

>
>>> Odd Bodkin now is suggesting whatever physicists have said must be
>>> totally accepted without question.
>>
>> Nah, I believe in questioning.
>

> The liar has not questioned anything against the piles of textbooks it is sitting on. <shrug>
>

>> I don't believe that if a physicist tries to explain something and I
>> haven't understood what he's said, then I should say the physicist is
>> full of shit.
>

> Koobee Wublee does not believe that either. <shrug>
>

>> That would be the response of a hostile megalomaniac and I have no
>> desire to act that way.
>

> And Koobee Wublee also agrees with this one. <shrug>
>

>> Instead, I ask to have it explained a different way, and just about
>> always that results in something I now understand.
>

> The problem is that you don't understand but pretend to understand after these showing

> signs of "what you don't believe in our bullshit?" <shrug>

And how would you know whether I understand or pretend to understand?
Does Koobee Wublee have the powers of telepathic omniscience? How long
have you been so empowered?

>
>> Now, since you don't understand what they've said when they explain
>> how it's not a contradiction, what's going to be your response?
>

> This is your misunderstanding. Just because you don't understand but pretends to understand
> and swallow all that shit does not mean Koobee Wublee abides in the same ethics. Koobee Wublee
> understands where the physicists have gone wrong and have pointed out exactly where they have
> gone wrong. The above two posts are a good start for you to chew on if you are indeed interested
> in why you have been swallowing shit just because your idols have told you to do so. <shrug>
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/16/2015 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee Wublee and many others
>>> based on mathematical axioms.
>>
>> Oh, that's really interesting. Which mathematical axioms have you used,
>> and can you show the proof?
>>
>>> Odd Bodkin now is suggesting whatever physicists have said must be totally accepted without question.
>>
>> Nah, I believe in questioning. I don't believe that if a physicist tries
>> to explain something and I haven't understood what he's said, then I
>> should say the physicist is full of shit.
>
> The problem is that your (physicist's) explanation involve invoking further bogus assumptions.

Which assumptions are you referring to, and what experimental evidence
can you point to that shows each assumption is bogus?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/16/2015 11:45 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/16/2015 1:33 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 1:23:26 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>>>> The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee
>>>> Wublee and many others based on mathematical axioms.
>>>
>>> Oh, that's really interesting.
>>
>> You are a terrible liar! <shrug>
>>
>>> Which mathematical axioms have you used, and can you show the proof?
>>
>> For instance, the following are good starts for you. <shrug>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/1eWIUe5gZMM/Yf-2nu9pllUJ
>>
>

Let's actually extract your language from this post.
=========================================================
**** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors
==========================================================
Without any loss of generality we can revert back to the form of the
Lorentz transforms without the differentials.
**** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.

1) t13 = (t23 – [B21] * [s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) t23 = (t13 – [B12] * [s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) t14 = (dt24 – [B21] * [s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) t24 = (dt14 – [B12] * [s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

Now please notice that B21 has one sign in the event that 1 and 2 are
receding from each other and the opposite sign in the event that 1 and 2
are approaching each other. Clearly, it would be a silly and KW-like
mistake to use the same expression to discuss a trip involving both
cases, without tracking the sign change.

But let's go back to what you were saying in your post:
================================================================
Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
observed by the other as the observed. Thus, it is a matter of
writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2.....

Step 1: Discard equations 3) and 4).

Step 2: Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
following example):

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
===================================================================
And again, without loss of generality, one can always revert to the
non-differential form of these equations:
1) t12 = (t22 – [B21] * [s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) t22 = (t12 – [B12] * [s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Now, let's take a look at this equation [1] carefully here. Let's let
observer 2 be the traveling twin, and let's suppose for the sake of
argument that the turn-around of observer 2 is instantaneous. Let's make
that moment of turnaround to be at location s22 and time t22 according
to observer 2. Now, we'll consider a moment just BEFORE that turnaround,
t22-e, where e is small, and a moment just AFTER that turnaround t22+e,
where e is small. When this happens, observer 2 is not at s22 but at
s22-f, where f is also small and related to e; please notice that the
location is the SAME value both before and after the turnaround because,
well, it's turned around.

The other thing that has changed is that B21 has completely changed
sign. Now, we said earlier that it would be a completely stupid and
KW-like mistake to use the same variable both before and after the
turnaround when it has changed sign, so we should keep track of it by
calling it, say, B before the turnaround and -B after the collision, and
removing the dot-product notation.

Thus at time t22-e, we have
1) t12 = (t22-e - (B)(s22-f)/c) / sqrt(1-B^2)
and at time t22+e, we have
1') t12' = (t22+e + (B)(s22-f)/c) / sqrt(1-B^2)

So if we wanted to find out what happens in t12 over the small
differential in time t22, which we'll call dt22 = 2e, then we can
subtract these two equations to find that
t12' - t12 = (dt22 + 2(B)(s22-f)/c) / sqrt(1-B^2)

Zoot alors! t12'-t12 is not small at all, even though dt22 is small.
In fact if we neglect the size of e and f, then we find out that just in
turning around, the duration of the turnaround, as seen by the earth has
taken a huge amount of time!
t12' - t12 = (2(B)(s22)/c) / sqrt(1-B^2)

This is of course dramatically different than the dt12 expression that
KW produced in his post, which was the consequence of using the same
variable B21 for both legs of the journey when in fact the value of B21
changes sign, a completely silly mistake that KW would rightfully feel
like an idiot for committing.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/16/2015 12:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

I noticed I missed some things when editing below, and the corrected
version is here.

> ==========================================================
> Without any loss of generality we can revert back to the form of the
> Lorentz transforms without the differentials.
> **** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
> at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
> observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
> Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
> where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
> respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
> transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.
>
> 1) t13 = (t23 – [B21] * [s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> 2) t23 = (t13 – [B12] * [s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> And
>

> 3) t14 = (t24 – [B21] * [s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> 4) t24 = (t14 – [B12] * [s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

>
> Where
>
> ** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
> ** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
> ** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors
>
> Now please notice that B21 has one sign in the event that 1 and 2 are
> receding from each other and the opposite sign in the event that 1 and 2
> are approaching each other. Clearly, it would be a silly and KW-like
> mistake to use the same expression to discuss a trip involving both
> cases, without tracking the sign change.
>
> But let's go back to what you were saying in your post:
> ================================================================

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 11:54:57 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:48:12 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:47:41 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > A paradox was not meant to be a teaching puzzle but a red flag on
> > > something that is seemingly senseless, logically unacceptable, and
> > > self-contradictory. A paradox can either be a non-issue (just a
> > > misunderstanding) or a fatal contradiction. <shrug>
> >
> > > [In the meantime,] Koobee Wublee, Phil, Dingle, and others have turned
> > > every single rock of the Twin paradox over. The conclusion is that
> > > this paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else. <shrug>
> >
> > > [With that said,] Physicists are just fvcking stupid not to be able to
> > > see the contradiction within the said paradox. <shrug>
> >
> > Is there any reason why you cannot simply admit like a man that you
> > don't understand something rather than inventing a ludicrous theory
> > according to which all physicists on planet Earth are stupid?
>
> There is nothing to admit.

But there is! If the only alternative is the claim that all physicists
on Earth are stupid, then you have a LOT of admitting to do. In fact,
the only admission that will work under such circumstances is your
admission of nearly total incompetence. Nothing else will work with
the claim you make, you see.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs", and all that.

> Koobee Wublee understands backed up by basic mathematical axioms that the Twin paradox can only be a contradiction just as Dingle being one of the first to have pointed it out. <shrug>

Shrug all you want, it's still remains a false statement.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

He also keeps referring to me as an "it" - you noticed that? :-)

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:446c874c-ecb9-4aa7...@googlegroups.com...

|But there is! If the only alternative is the claim that all physicists
|on Earth are stupid, then you have a LOT of admitting to do. In fact,

In fact, after consideration all your black holes, white holes, worm holes
parallel universes and other singularities, alternative is rather obvious.

[Odd Bodkin]

As in, "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again." -
Buffalo Bill, Silence of the Lambs.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Unmatched end tag.

You need a beginning &lt;sarcasm&gt; tag for me to understand where your
mocking comments start.

Otherwise, I can't parse your intent at all, no way, no how...























;)

[Odd Bodkin]

</irony>

[kefischer]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:41:15 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Moron, if you use an / "off switch",
it is ignored if there isn't an "on switch",
and just wastes bandwidth.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:55:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/16/2015 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2015 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >>> The Twin paradox has been shown to be a fatal contradiction by Koobee Wublee and many others
> >>> based on mathematical axioms.
> >>
> >> Oh, that's really interesting. Which mathematical axioms have you used,
> >> and can you show the proof?
> >>
> >>> Odd Bodkin now is suggesting whatever physicists have said must be totally accepted without question.
> >>
> >> Nah, I believe in questioning. I don't believe that if a physicist tries
> >> to explain something and I haven't understood what he's said, then I
> >> should say the physicist is full of shit.
> >
> > The problem is that your (physicist's) explanation involve invoking further bogus assumptions.
>
> Which assumptions are you referring to, and what experimental evidence
> can you point to that shows each assumption is bogus?

The assumption that the stay at home clock jump in time when the traveling clock turns around.

[Gary Harnagel]

That's not SR's assumption, that's YOURS ... and it's wrong.

[Y]

Roberts...


The qualities of a paradox being 'true', or 'well founded' do not necessarily undo anything contradictory about them.

A well founded or true paradox can be something that is well illustrated to be contradictory, and that any statements about this paradox are 'true'.

It seems rather that YOU may have that definition confused, not Bodkin.

Paradoxes in relativity are not real paradoxes. A real paradox is a statement that is paradoxical, where two or more statements about a system which are true are also in conflict.

-y

[Koobee Wublee]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:51:55 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/16/2015 1:33 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/1eWIUe5gZMM/Yf-2nu9pllUJ

>
> > **** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
> > at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
> > observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
> > Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
> > where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
> > respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
> > transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.
>

> > 1) dt13 = (dt23 - [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2)
> > 2) dt23 = (dt13 - [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2)
>
> > And
>
> > 3) dt14 = (dt24 - [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2)
> > 4) dt24 = (dt14 - [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2)

>
> > Where
>
> > ** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
> > ** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
> > ** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors
>

> Without any loss of generality we can revert back to the form of the
> Lorentz transforms without the differentials.
>

> 1a) t13 = (t23 - [B21] * [s23] / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2)
> 2a) t23 = (t13 - [B12] * [s13] / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2)
>
> And
>
> 3a) t14 = (dt24 - [B21] * [s24] / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2)
> 4a) t24 = (dt14 - [B12] * [s14] / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2)

How archaic, but suits yourself! <shrug>

Including the other equations of the Lorentz transform, equations (1) to (4) can be rewritten into a concise, single equation each as Minkowski had discovered. <shrug>

1b) dt13^2 = dt23^2 - ds23^2 / c^2
2b) dt23^2 = dt13^2 - ds13^2 / c^2

And

3b) dt14^2 = dt24^2 - ds24^2 / c^2
4b) dt24^2 = dt14^2 - ds14^2 / c^2

Well, claiming the above wrong is like claiming Minkowski spacetime wrong, and there is no GR. So, does Odd Bodkin aka PD wish to go there? Koobee Wublee will take silence as a kowtow in capitulation. Well, then you got to be a moron not to be able to see the checkmate move soon. <shrug>

Similarly, you can write equations (1a) to (4a) into the following. <shrug>

1c) t13^2 = t23^2 - s23^2 / c^2
2c) t23^2 = t13^2 - s13^2 / c^2
And

3c) t14^2 = t24^2 - s24^2 / c^2
4c) t24^2 = t14^2 - s14^2 / c^2

The only difference between equations (1b) to (4b) and equations (1c) to (4c) is that the latter only applies to inertial frames of reference while the former is more general that also governs the laws of physics in non-inertial frames of reference. While Odd Bodkin does not give a shit since Odd Bodkin is merely a front receptionist for PD, PD in the back must be getting very nervous. <shrug>

> Now please notice that B21 has one sign in the event that 1 and 2 are
> receding from each other and the opposite sign in the event that 1 and 2
> are approaching each other.

[B21] or [B12] disappears in equations (1b) to (4b) as well as (1c) to (4c). <Koobee Wublee coldly chuckling in disdain>

Equations (1b) to (4c) can be written into the following. <IN YOUR FACE>

1d) dt13 = dt23 (1 - B23^2)
2d) dt23 = dt13 (1 - B13^2)

And

3d) dt14 = dt24 (1 - B24^2)
4d) dt24 = dt14 (1 - B14^2)

Where

** B_ij^2 = (ds_ij/dt_ij)^2 / c^2

Well, Odd Bodkin aka PD can play the shit proposed by Jan Bielawski that ds_ij/dt_ij is always zero since dt_ij is independent of ds_ij. Want to go there? Morons do find more comfort in the company of other morons as you know. <shrug>

We have the 2 independent Lorentz transforms. Equations (1d) and (2d) are reciprocals of each other, and they represent a single Lorentz transform. Similarly, equations (3d) and (4d) from another but independent Lorentz transform. Now, we are ready to show the Twin paradox is indeed a fatal contradiction to the Lorentz transform and thus SR as well. <shrug>

When 1 is observing 2, 3 becomes 2 in equations (1d) and (2d) in which we have:

1e) dt12 = dt22 (1 - B22^2) = dt22
2e) dt22 = dt12 (1 - B12^2)

Where

** B22 = 0, the speed of one as observed by itself is always zero, duh!

Equations (1e) and (2e) are mathematically contradictions to each other from the same Lorentz transform if B12^2 > 0. <shrug>

Similarly, equations (3d) and (4d) can be applied when 1 is observed by 2 in which 4 becomes 1. The Lorentz transform of equations (3d) and (4d) are also contradictions to itself. <shrug>

3e) dt11 = dt21 (1 - B21^2)
4e) dt21 = dt11 (1 - B11^2) = dt11

> [rest of Odd Bodkin's fatal math errors snipped]

Odd Bodkin did not realize that s11 = s22 = 0. That is the symmetry demands from the Lorentz transform. These relativistic morons aka Einstein dingleberries are really a bunch of idiots whose gross ignorance in basic mathematics had built them the hell known as SR. <shrug>

DINGLE WAS RIGHT! <shrug>

[Odd Bodkin]

And what experimental evidence can you point to that shows that is bogus?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/17/2015 1:05 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> [B21] or [B12] disappears in equations (1b) to (4b) as well as (1c) to (4c). <Koobee Wublee coldly chuckling in disdain>

Now, how can [B12] or [B21] disappear?
You seem to have forgotten that [B12] changes sign between the outbound
and inbound portion of the trip.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/17/2015 1:05 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> DINGLE WAS RIGHT! <shrug>

Wow, such a flurry of chaff.
And you couldn't follow that B12 changes sign from the outbound and
inbound legs of the trip. Such simple math, and you lost it completely.
Pity.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 5:54:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> You seem to have forgotten that [B12] changes sign between the outbound
> and inbound portion of the trip.

Well, before we continue, Koobee Wublee would like to correct a few things. <shrug>

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/1eWIUe5gZMM/Yf-2nu9pllUJ

>
> > 1) dt13 = (dt23 - [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2)
> > 2) dt23 = (dt13 - [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2)
>
> > And
>
> > 3) dt14 = (dt24 - [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2)
> > 4) dt24 = (dt14 - [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
> > ** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
> > ** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

Including the other equations of the Lorentz transform, equations (1) to (4) can be rewritten into a concise, single equation each as Minkowski had discovered. <shrug>

5) dt13^2 - ds13^2 / c^2 = dt23^2 - ds23^2 / c^2

And

6) dt24^2 - ds24^2 / c^2 = dt14^2 - ds14^2 / c^2

You get equation (5) for one set of the Lorentz transform and equation (6) for the other set of the Lorentz transform. Claiming the above wrong is like claiming Minkowski spacetime wrong, and there would be no GR. Yes, [B12] and {B21] completely vanish. <shrug>

> Now, how can [B12] or [B21] disappear?

Let's write the Lorentz transform in a more traditional way. Shall we? <shrug>

7t) dt' = (dt - v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
7x) dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
7y) dy' = dy
7z) dz' = dz

Take the sum of the square of each equation (7x), (7y) and (7z) and subtract from the square of equation (7t) as described below. <shrug>

** (7t)^2 - (7x)^2 - (7y)^2 - (7z)^2

Or

** c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Or

** c^2 dt'^2 - ds'^2 = c^2 dt^2 - ds^2

Where

** ds'^2 = dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2
** ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

Notice v disappears completely where [B12] and B[21] play the roles of v and -v. This basic mathematics. Minkowski was the first to derive so from the Lorentz transform. <shrug>

Continuing the embarrassment of these relativistic morons aka Einstein dingleberries, equations (5) and (6) can be written into the following. <shrug>

8) dt13 sqrt(1 - B13^2) = dt23 sqrt(1 - B23^2)

And

9) dt24 sqrt(1 - B24^2) = dt14 sqrt(1 - B14^2)

Where

** B_ij^2 = (ds_ij/dt_ij)^2 / c^2

Well, Odd Bodkin aka PD can play the shit proposed by Jan Bielawski that ds_ij/dt_ij is always zero since dt_ij is independent of ds_ij. Wish to go there? Morons do find more comfort in the company of other morons as you know. <shrug>

We have the 2 independent Lorentz transforms as described by equations (8) and (9). Now, we are ready to show the Twin paradox is indeed a fatal contradiction to the Lorentz transform and thus SR as well. <shrug>

When 1 is observing 2, 3 becomes 2 in equation (8) in which we have the following showing the local time dt22 at 2 is observed by 1 to be dt12. <shrug>

8a) dt12 sqrt(1 - B12^2) = dt22 sqrt(1 - B22^2) = dt22

Or

8b) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 - B12^2)

Where

** B22 = 0, the speed of one as observed by itself is always zero, duh!

Similarly, equation (9) can be applied when 2 is observing 1 in which 4 becomes 1. The local time dt11 at 1 is observed to be dt21 by 2. <shrug>

9a) dt21 sqrt(1 - B^21^2) = dt11 sqrt(1 - B11^2) = dt11

Or

9b) dt11 = dt21 sqrt(1 - B21^2)

Since B12^2 = B21^2, equations (8b) and (9b) become contradictory for B12^2 != 0. Thus, THE TWIN PARADOX IS A CONTRADICTION TO THE LORENTZ TRANSFORM. DINGLE WAS RIGHT THAT THE TWIN PARADOX IS NOT A FVCKING TEACHING BULLSHIT! <shrug>