**** Desperation
It must be very heart breaking for the Einstein Dingleberries to watch
their beloved SR getting shit canned. <shrug>
**** Hope
This is more like false hope because the Einstein Dingleberries just
cannot walk away from that pile of crap called SR. <shrug>
**** Zombism
Every day wishing for this hope is going to trig the mind to believe
in a false resolution. It does not matter how fucked up or stupid the
resolution is. As soon as the Einstein Dingleberries sink their teeth
into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them from SR.
<shrug>
**** Awakening
After a while, the scientist in their id will be knocking on their
consciousness. They will start to realize just how fucking stupid
they were with such zeal in their faith. <shrug>
**** Desperation
And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at
least three such cycles so far. <shrug>
**** Acceleration
This handwaving was first proposed by Born. Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar knew no better. So, the nitwit was the
champion as well. To this day, there are still quite a few idiots
still supporting this nonsense. <shrug>
**** Diagram
Some idiots thought the twins’ paradox can be resolved by drawing a
few lines in their so-called spacetime diagram. This resolution seems
to have the least amount of survival time. There are almost no idiots
following this one anymore. <shrug>
**** MathemaGics
Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform,
** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
Where
** [v] = velocity of dt as observed by dt’ (primed frame)
** [s] = displacement vector of the observed
These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
a break in the symmetry.
** d[s]/dt = - [v]
The correct application in this case is
** d[s] = 0
Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage. However,
most of them have moved on to the next cycle. <shrug>
**** Pathlength
The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
xxein: So? Can you show us a solution or do you just complain?
>**** Desperation
dude, get a job.
- William Hughes
Can the self-styled physicists dispatch more intelligent Einstein
Dingleberries to these discussions on their behalf other than these
dick heads whose combined intelligence is no more than a single
amoeba? <shrug>
Perhaps, they are just too stunned when He can read their minds, or
they are too busy with their useless new quest on the clue He tossed
them. <shrug>
In the meantime, He believes it is time for the Relativity Play to
keep the sanity among the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/f4a0f3c305008773
Paul Cardinale
> A paradox is something which, on the surface, seems to be a
> contradiction, but upon closer examination turns out not to be one.
No, a paradox is a fallacy which is absurd that hopefully anyone would
have never observed. <shrug>
> Anyone who can do high school level algebra, can apply the LT and show
> that the Twin Paradox is not a contradiction.
Ahahahaha... This comment is indeed very ignorant. There are several
version of this so-called high-school level algebra interpretation to
the Lorentz transform. Which one is BELIEVED by you? <shrug>
Hey, bigot, have you even read the post that you replied to? <shrug>
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> news:99116a60-
fc39-4caa-886...@e16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> |A paradox is something which, on the surface, seems to be a |
> contradiction, but upon closer examination turns out not to be one. |
> Anyone who can do high school level algebra, can apply the LT and show |
> that the Twin Paradox is not a contradiction. |
> | Paul Cardinale
> |
> Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
> imbecile.
Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
"Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.
You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious belief
to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who understand
things that you never will understand --- like simple math.
--
--
Predictions of relativity.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant--the velocity of
light in empty space." --Einstein
In agreement with bullshit:
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically,
of an infinitely great velocity" -- Einstein.
"We establish by definition that "the ``time'' required by light
to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel
from B to A."-- Einstein.
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB", but tB-tA is 1/2(t'A-tA).
Hence tB-tA plays the part, physically, of half an infinitesimally
small duration of time.
Clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see clock A,no matter
how far apart they are they are synchronized, the light signals
between them play the part, physically, of taking half of an
infinitesimally small duration of time, which plays the part,
physically, of zero.
In agreement with experience:
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, it's a perfect clock.
In agreement with experience:
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, it's a perfect clock.
In agreement with bullshit:
"if one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve
with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting
t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled
clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow."- Einstein.
In agreement with Einstein's assumption:
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth, because "in accordance with definition
the two clocks synchronize if 0 = 0"-- Einstein.
In disagreement with the Principle of Simultaneity (A meets B when B
meets A):
Clock A meets clock B at dawn and clock B sees clock A arrive at noon.
In agreement with experience:
The dork Einstein plays the part, physically, of a deranged lying cretin.
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:kbidnVs9u9-Mw2HQ...@giganews.com... | On Fri, 17 Jun
> 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote: |
> | > "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message | >
> news:99116a60-
> | fc39-4caa-886...@e16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... | > |A
> paradox is something which, on the surface, seems to be a | | >
> contradiction, but upon closer examination turns out not to be one. | |
> > Anyone who can do high school level algebra, can apply the LT and show
> | | > that the Twin Paradox is not a contradiction. | | > | Paul
> Cardinale
> | > |
> | > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling | >
> imbecile.
> | Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
> | "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox. |
> | I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement. |
> | You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious
> belief | to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who
> understand | things that you never will understand --- like simple math.
> |
> Oh, so Special Relativity by Shadowitz is different to Special
> Relativity by Einstein.
Nope. Same stuff. Both are based on the Lorentz transformation, which is
simply the transformation which holds Maxwell's equations invariant.
I thought you MIGHT be interested in a treatment of the subject that you
have a chance of understanding. My bad, I was wrong. You're not
interested. Reading a book on the subject you're ranting about gets in
the way of your ranting. :-D
The implications of that is that you're up against Maxwell's equations
and a massive amount of experimental verification. But you don't know
that and neither do the other anti-SR people. And that's why no one who
knows better takes you serious.
> There must be a thousand or more different Special Relativities out
> there by now.
> Fuckwits like you don't know the difference between multiplication and
> division.
There you go!
A massive amount of experimental verification that SR is crap:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
Handwaving pig-ignorant fuckwits like you don't know the difference between
multiplication
and division.
The muon, as you noticed, is moving, and the stationary lab frame is not,
relative to the lab frame (duh!).
So, in the lab frame, the muon's "clock" seems to go slower. That is
proven experimentally by a bunch of muon's with a half life of 2.2
microseonds having an observed half life of 64 microseconds.
Perhaps if you purged your language of words like "fuckwit" you would be
able to read and comprehend the rest of the English language. Really,
you've been on and on about SR because you were confused by that?!
LOL!
Look at it this way, if my watch is running slow, do I show up LATER, or
earlier at work? Take your time figuring that out, because you're saying
with a slow watch I'm going to show up earlier, and that's just wrong.
That's right.
|
| So, in the lab frame, the muon's "clock" seems to go slower.
Slower than 64 microseconds, but moving clocks run slow. So
it is already measured as slow.
Now time one that is standing still, you moron.
Handwaving pig-ignorant fuckwits like you don't know the difference
between multiplication and division.
LOL, you fucking imbecile.
If your watch runs so slow that it stops you'll get to work in zero time
which means you ran FTL. FUCKWIT!
ROFLMAO!
< snip Androcles confusion about slower moving clocks >
> Handwaving pig-ignorant fuckwits
You know, for a troll, you're an offensive one.
You're not doing your argument any good. Are you trying to make a fool of
yourself?
You don't have a clue about SR, and you're not worth anyone's time trying
to educate.
You know, for a Martian, you are a pig-ignorant fuckwit.
<restore Marvin's confusion about slower moving clocks>
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:9audnZtT0OSszWPQ...@giganews.com...
|
| Look at it this way, if my watch is running slow, do I show up LATER, or
| earlier at work? Take your time figuring that out, because you're saying
| with a slow watch I'm going to show up earlier, and that's just wrong.
If your watch runs so slow that it stops you'll get to work in zero time
> > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
> > imbecile.
>
> Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
> "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
>
> I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.
Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
spacetime. <shrug>
Let’s see. According to the Einstein Dingleberries, Andro is 57 light
years old. Notice a light year is a unit of measuring distance.
<shrug>
> You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious belief
> to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who understand
> things that you never will understand --- like simple math.
Yeah, your math of claiming aging to a spacetime displacement is very
simple. It is the wild-ass assertion that you do not even
understand. <shrug>
Due to desperation, the self-styled physicists are getting dumber and
dumber from one generation to the next. <shrug>
The statement that explains the self-styled physicists cannot get
dumber the next generation seems to be always wrong. <shrug>
==============================================
I agree with most of what you say, Kinky, where we differ is your
insane undetectable mechanical ectoplasm which cannot permit fast light
emitted later to pass slow light emitted earlier, thereby making cepheids
and recurrent novae magical myths.
Androcles wrote:
>> > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
>> > imbecile, Marvin.
>>
Marvin wrote:
>> Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
>> "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
>> I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.
>
KW wrote:
> Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
> For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> spacetime. <shrug>
> Let�s see. According to the Einstein Dingleberries, Andro is 57 light
> years old. Notice a light year is a unit of measuring distance.
> <shrug>
>
Marvin wrote:
>> You're too ignorant to understand it and it has become a religious belief
>> to you. Whatever. The best you can do is call people names who understand
>> things that you never will understand --- like simple math.
>
KW wrote:
> Yeah, your math of claiming aging to a spacetime displacement is very
> simple. It is the wild-ass assertion that you do not even
> understand. <shrug>
> Due to desperation, the self-styled physicists are getting dumber and
> dumber from one generation to the next. <shrug>
> The statement that explains the self-styled physicists cannot get
> dumber the next generation seems to be always wrong. <shrug>
>
Androces wrote:
> I agree with most of what you say, Kinky, where we differ is your
> insane undetectable mechanical ectoplasm which cannot permit fast light
> emitted later to pass slow light emitted earlier, thereby making cepheids
> and recurrent novae magical myths.
>
hanson wrote:
Andro, not so fast with your "ectoplasmic allergy"
First define select and chose:
== If light consists of waves, then light needs a medium
by definition.... (for making waves in/of the medium)
== It light consists of energy packets (hf) then these
"balls" of light are ballistic and need no medium.
So what gives?
Hanson Twin going at c reminds me of you. "Brain dead." TreBert
Time is merely a component of spacetime. In natural units, space and
time even have common units, and there is certainly no physical reason
not to measure distance in seconds, so that a displacement in
spacetime will be measured consistently in seconds.
You could Google natural units if you can't find a Royal Minion to do
it for you.
The first few chapters of Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book on
Spacetime Physics deals specifically with this units issue.
This makes no sense. The quantity dt is a time interval, not an object
or a point with a velocity.
Mathematics becomes mathemagic for those who do not know what the
symbols mean or what the quantities represent.
> ** [s] = displacement vector of the observed
>
> These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
> a break in the symmetry.
>
> ** d[s]/dt = - [v]
>
> The correct application in this case is
>
> ** d[s] = 0
>
> Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
> stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage. However,
> most of them have moved on to the next cycle. <shrug>
>
> **** Pathlength
>
> The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
> for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
> of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
> in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
> paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
I really don't know what the problem is. The twins puzzle is a
teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
regarding relativity. There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
equivalent experiment. It's plain that Your Royalness does not
understand any of them, but this is a problem with His Royalness, not
with relativity.
I had an Adviser, like you. Whenever he was not sure
about what was presented to him, he lamented in
his obsessive, obfuscatory way... just like you do
(and like we always do in court, to confuse to the
opposition and impress the jury)... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahansom
Ninkowski was a good "Nd geometer," but
he put his pants on, one lightcone at a time,
like everyone else who tries to do the math.
(see his generalization of Pick's theorem e.g.,
whether or not it is ever useful.)
> On Jun 18, 1:13 am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:04:16 +0100, Androcles wrote:
>
>> > Upon closer examination the LT is a contradiction, you babbling
>> > imbecile.
>>
>> Nah, he's right. Shadowitz uses just calculus, no algebra, in his book
>> "Special Relativity" and that book explains the twin paradox.
>>
>> I explained it here using the invariant space-time displacement.
>
> Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> spacetime. <shrug>
Are those <shrug>'s supposed to make you look intelligent?
The spacetime displacement is:
tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)
if x = 0, the displacement is purely timelike. Which puts the lie to your
idiot's drivel and your silly <shrug>s.
Damn, you anti-SR people are assholes. You don't know what the fuck
you're talking about.
> > Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> > stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> > For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> > spacetime. <shrug>
>
> Are those <shrug>'s supposed to make you look intelligent?
Why don’t you ask Ton Roberts? <shrug>
> The spacetime displacement is:
>
> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)
So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>
> if x = 0, the displacement is purely timelike. Which puts the lie to your
> idiot's drivel and your silly <shrug>s.
Cooking up laws of physics from your pot of alchemy is not cool.
<shrug>
> Damn, you anti-SR people are assholes. You don't know what the fuck
> you're talking about.
Where do they get these Einstein Dingleberries from? Were they born
out of the primordial cesspool of the fermented diarrhea of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> > Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> > stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> > For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> > spacetime. <shrug>
>
> Time is merely a component of spacetime.
<shrug>
> In natural units, space and
> time even have common units, and there is certainly no physical reason
> not to measure distance in seconds, so that a displacement in
> spacetime will be measured consistently in seconds.
So, what is PD’s age in this natural unit (expecting a distance
measurement)? <shrug>
> You could Google natural units if you can't find a Royal Minion to do
> it for you.
Measuring time in distance is just stupid and wrong. <shrug>
> The first few chapters of Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book on
> Spacetime Physics deals specifically with this units issue.
Due to desperation, the self-styled physicists are getting dumber and
Perhaps you can help.
Imagine their are two identical twins. One stays on earth, whilst the other
travels to a distant star and returns, travelling at a constant 0.9c with
the round trip taking 20 years.
When the travelling twin is re-united with the stay-at-home twin, is the
travelling twin the same age as, younger than, or older than the
stay-at-home twin?
Once again, frame dt means the frame of reference that dt applies to.
Once again, a short cut in typing results in gross confusion among the
idiots. Are you really that dumb or just want to harass Him? <shrug>
> > ** [s] = displacement vector of the observed
>
> > These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
> > a break in the symmetry.
>
> > ** d[s]/dt = - [v]
>
> > The correct application in this case is
>
> > ** d[s] = 0
>
> > Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
> > stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage. However,
> > most of them have moved on to the next cycle. <shrug>
>
> > **** Pathlength
>
> > The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
> > for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
> > of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
> > in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
> > paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> > piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> > over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
>
> I really don't know what the problem is.
That is because you are so stupid. <shrug>
> The twins puzzle is a
> teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
> regarding relativity.
Lying is not teaching. <shrug>
> There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
> puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
> consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
> equivalent experiment.
All these varieties are total bullshit. A physicist cannot seriously
endorse all of them. <shrug>
> It's plain that Your Royalness
He actually had higher denomination for Himself not mere royalty.
<shrug>
> does not
> understand any of them, but this is a problem with His Royalness, not
> with relativity.
What is there to understand about bullshit? <shrug>
Which cycle in these so-called resolution to the twins’ paradox are
you stuck on? He thought PD endorses the pathlength nonsense, no?
<shrug>
> > Aging is not an issue of spacetime displacement. In fact, it is very
> > stupid to suggest that aging is a displacement of spacetime. <shrug>
>
> > For your information, your aging process is measured in time not
> > spacetime. <shrug>
>
> Are those <shrug>'s supposed to make you look intelligent?
Why don�t you ask Ton Roberts? <shrug>
> The spacetime displacement is:
>
> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)
So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>
===================================
Nah, it's an imaginary distance, the dingleberry has never
heard of dimensional analysis. It takes a real fuckwit to
subtract a square hour times a square speed from an acre.
Happy new solstice.
Natural units have been used by scientists for some time. You may want
to at least google them to find out what they are before you dismiss
something you know NOTHING about as stupid and wrong.
KW didn't "take refuge" in natural units. Please look up what "natural
units" means.
>
> KW wrote:
>
> The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
> for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
> of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
> in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
> paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> I really don't know what the problem is. The twins puzzle is a
> teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
> regarding relativity. There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
> puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
> consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
> equivalent experiment. It's plain that Your Royalness does not
> understand any of them, but this is a problem with His Royalness, not
> with relativity.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> If it's a puzzle, then it's a problem, by definition.
There are end-of-chapter problems in freshman physics textbooks, too.
They are there to provide practice and to teach. They do not imply
that there is an issue with the theory. They are there to TEACH the
theory.
> If there's no contradiction in the TP, then why is
> there a variety of ways needed to show resultS?...
> You imply that there is more than 1 solution. Why?
Because in physics, it is quite commonplace for there to be more than
one way to skin the cat. This is as it should be. You will, for
example, see Atwood machine problems solved by Newton's 2nd law, by
conservation of momentum, by conservation of energy, by Lagrangian
mechanics, by Hamiltonian mechanics. You were expecting physics to to
be so recipe-driven that there is one and only one way of figuring out
an answer?
>
> So, instead of you making the usual ED clinkering
> show a solution/s, 1 or many, convincingly, so that the
> Royalty can underhand it. A Good teacher like you
> ought to be able to do that, don't you?...
No, I don't believe that. There are some people, like KW, that are
more like table legs or pots of turkey stuffing than like reasonably
intelligent students. Some students fail in their courses. This is not
necessarily a reflection on the teacher. Sometimes it is just an
indication that the student is not cut out for the subject matter.
Or are you a believer in NCLB, hanson, and that it is the teacher's
obligation to prevent even the slowest students from failing?
That is a rather silly nomenclature, but thanks for clarifying.
> Once again, a short cut in typing results in gross confusion among the
> idiots.
Yes, especially using a private nomenclature that is understood by
Your Royalness alone.
> Are you really that dumb or just want to harass Him? <shrug>
>
>
>
> > > ** [s] = displacement vector of the observed
>
> > > These mathemaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
> > > a break in the symmetry.
>
> > > ** d[s]/dt = - [v]
>
> > > The correct application in this case is
>
> > > ** d[s] = 0
>
> > > Well, the stupid mathemaGicians are still clinging on to this
> > > stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage. However,
> > > most of them have moved on to the next cycle. <shrug>
>
> > > **** Pathlength
>
> > > The current cycle to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out
> > > for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture
> > > of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of
> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging
> > > in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’
> > > paradox. So far, the Einstein Dingleberries who subscribe to this
> > > piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
> > > over time the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>
>
> > I really don't know what the problem is.
>
> That is because you are so stupid. <shrug>
Or that it is you that still can't understand the same simple problem
that others have no difficulty mastering. Or is the Ego of Your
Royalness incapable of accepting such a possibility?
>
> > The twins puzzle is a
> > teaching exercise, designed to reveal to students their misconceptions
> > regarding relativity.
>
> Lying is not teaching. <shrug>
There is no lie. There are some students who simply fail.
>
> > There is no inherent contradiction in the twins
> > puzzle, and there are a variety of ways to show that SR is completely
> > consistent with the results, which by the way have been confirmed in
> > equivalent experiment.
>
> All these varieties are total bullshit. A physicist cannot seriously
> endorse all of them. <shrug>
Sorry, but they're really straightforward. It's a pity that, even
after explaining something *multiple ways*, you can't find even ONE
that you understand. Some students fail.
>
> > It's plain that Your Royalness
>
> He actually had higher denomination for Himself not mere royalty.
> <shrug>
Yes, I gathered that. I take that as a sign that you've not seen your
doctor lately.
== Today, schools have been forced to terminate programs,
because the science of physics is riddled with claims that
are as absurd as those of any religious cult. The are being
classified as "low producing".
Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and
physics departments at major universities with grand histories
in physical science are closing down for lack of interest.
cit off --- :
>
hanson wrote:
Some quick check also shows that Bavarian universities
have dropped Relativity to be a mandatory requirement
for graduate physics programs in,1996, 15 years ago.
>
sci.physics, sp.relativity & sp. research have become
loci of things that are now on the dust heap of history.
The days of "Einstein, Einstein ueber Alles", and the
notion that "Jewish shit don't stink" are the sound & the
markers on the graveyard of relativity physics...
>
Einstein's Twin has come home to roost... ahahahaha...
on a bed of Einstein Dingleberries, who keep on
worshipping Albert's sphincter, no matter what... ahaha...
FORTUNATELY, diehard Einstein Dingleberries will
keep hanging and dangling around and provide lots
of hilarious entertainment with Gedanken experiments.
>
Thanks for the laughs, you splendid fanatics... ahaha..
ahahahanson
>
PS:
You Dingleberries should have listened to Einstein,
who in his own words, just a year before he folded
his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked
the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....
Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Jewish friend Besso:
>
Well, I notice that you make reference to your own op-ed piece, which
is propaganda unsupportable by factual analysis, other than perhaps
citing other anectodal comments.
>
> cit on --- :
> == In the past century, theoretical physicists have rejected
> causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions,
> and reality in favor of fantasy.
Quantum mechanics doesn't reject causality. What it rejects is rigid
determinism, a classical notion that holds in approximation but is not
respected by nature as a whole. There are no contradictions in
physics; there are, however, teaching puzzles which still confuse some
people -- but these should not then be taken as more than the
confusion of those people. And hypothetical conjectures in science are
part of the business of doing science, and those are then put to
experimental test.
>
> If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and
> Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma
> (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking) and it's most certainly
> not because they make any sense.
But they DO make sense. Your objection, I take it, is that they do not
make sense TO YOU. This can be remedied by sufficient action and
initiative and personal investment. It is not a requirement of physics
that it makes sense to absolutely everyone. Those people that are
concerned about the public investment in physics, should by all means
reflect that concern by enhancing their personal time and effort
investment in understanding things properly.
> In fact, they have become
> the measure by which we sanctify nonsense. The report warns
> that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from
> pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools.
>
> == Today, schools have been forced to terminate programs,
> because the science of physics is riddled with claims that
> are as absurd as those of any religious cult. The are being
> classified as "low producing".
> Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and
> physics departments at major universities with grand histories
> in physical science are closing down for lack of interest.
> cit off --- :
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Some quick check also shows that Bavarian universities
> have dropped Relativity to be a mandatory requirement
> for graduate physics programs in,1996, 15 years ago.
Yes, and that's because special relativity is now incorporated into
*undergraduate* studies.
> > So, what is PD’s age in this natural unit (expecting a distance
> > measurement)? <shrug>
>
> > Measuring time in distance is just stupid and wrong. <shrug>
>
> Natural units have been used by scientists for some time. You may want
> to at least google them to find out what they are before you dismiss
> something you know NOTHING about as stupid and wrong.
He did not say all natural units are stupid, but using this natural
unit into the content of time or spacetime is just stupid and
infantile. <shrug> If you think it is kosher, you should have no
problems telling us your age in the natural units of spacetime,
right? <shrug>
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
so, folks get rolled by lightcones, or
teleported.
>> The spacetime displacement is:
>>
>> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)
>
> So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>
Actually, it always could be. In the old way of doing things, time in
units of length was i*c*t, and a tau that was imaginary was time-like.
You're parading the fact you're not just ignorant, but the Pope of
ignorance, <shrug>, where you pontificate on stuff you HAVE NO CLUE
about.
What a loser. You're so utterly ignorant you don't even feel embarrassed
at your ignorant posts.
> The spacetime displacement is:
>
> tau = (x^2 - c^2*t^2)^(1/2)
>
> > So, tau is now an imaginary number. <shrug>
>
> Actually, it always could be. In the old way of doing things, time in
> units of length was i*c*t, and a tau that was imaginary was time-like.
This is total nonsense. What is your age in this imaginary number?
<shrug>
> [rest of personal insults snipped]
You are speaking complete gibberish.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Which does leave the problem of what the relative ages of the twins will be.
When re-united, will the travelling twin be younger, older, or the same age
as the stay-at-home twin?
Oh please, great physics expert, tell us what their relative ages will be
when re-united !
"using this natural unit into the content of time or spacetime"?
Would you care to rephrase that using English?
Would you care to google "natural units" first?
> > He did not say all natural units are stupid, but using this natural
> > unit into the content of time or spacetime is just stupid and
> > infantile. <shrug> If you think it is kosher, you should have no
> > problems telling us your age in the natural units of spacetime,
> > right? <shrug>
>
> "using this natural unit into the content of time or spacetime"?
> Would you care to rephrase that using English?
> Would you care to google "natural units" first?
Well, you are the one who claimed there is some sort of natural units
describing spacetime. What is it? What is your age in this natural
unit? Once again, you have no answers. You are just making up laws
of physics to suit your own zealous belief in SR and GR. <shrug>
Here are the scriptures of SR and GR:
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
<shrug>
No, there are natural units that are used in physics *broadly*, not
just in describing spacetime. Again, are you incapable of googling
"natural units"? Is all this bluster to mask your inabilities?
> What is it? What is your age in this natural
> unit? Once again, you have no answers. You are just making up laws
> of physics to suit your own zealous belief in SR and GR. <shrug>
Google it to see if I'm making it up.
to put it another way,
how can you tell if an electrical charge
has been added to Schroedinger's cat's box?
hairs stick-out at the edges.
more even simple than KE = mcc and
relativity, which is awefully simple.
if one "does" SR with quaternions,
all of the sophistry of "spacetime" just goes away
(such as Rees' 4d flipbook --
who needs that **** ?-)
.... <shrug>
...cut irrelevant text
<shrug>
.......cut odd stuff <shrug>
Do you have Saint Vitus' dance ?
> > Well, you are the one who claimed there is some sort of natural units
> > describing spacetime.
>
> > What is it? What is your age in this natural
> > unit? Once again, you have no answers. You are just making up laws
> > of physics to suit your own zealous belief in SR and GR. <shrug>
>
> No, there are natural units that are used in physics *broadly*, not
> just in describing spacetime. Again, are you incapable of googling
> "natural units"? Is all this bluster to mask your inabilities?
Wrong answer. This is the third time He is asking you this. You are
the one who claimed there is some sort of natural units describing
spacetime. So, what is this particular natural unit that describes
spacetime? <shrug>
Yes, I know you've asked me this. You are under the delusion that you
are owed what you ask for. I've told you to google "natural units" for
good reason. First, you will see that this is not something that has
been made up in this newsgroup. Second, you will get your answer.
Third, you will get additional context for why these are useful and
what the physical motivation for them is. Fourth, it will boost your
fragile ego to discover that you can actually look something up on
your own, rather than whining to others to feed it to you like a
featherless baby bird.
That seems completely wrong to me. Quaternions is an
alternative representation for vectors which is more
convenient for certain purposes, but it has nothing
to do with whether SR is about spacetime or not.
SR *IS* about spacetime. Actually, so is Newtonian
mechanics, it's just that Newtonian mechanics assumed
a different geometry for spacetime than SR does.
Just remember, he only shrugs when he's lying.
(I'm also still very curious what "issue" causes one to refer to oneself
in the third person _and_ feel the need to capitalize the references)
The greatest danger is to the more than 300 extra high-voltage
transformers located at power substations along the routes of major
transmission lines. An eruptive event on the Sun, known as a coronal
mass ejection, sends a powerful flux of charged particles, protons and
electrons, into the surrounding space. If the Earth is on a line with
the
eruption, the charged particles interact with the Earth's radiation
belts and geomagnetic field to produce currents in the ionosphere.
The power lines which make up the electrical transmission grid act as
antennae, to couple these ionospheric currents to the installed
transformers which step up the voltage for long-distance
transmission.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Solar_Storm_Threat.pdf
a cone is just a degenerate quadric surface, so that
it is not general enough to illustrate the essential idea;
why I use quaternions, as in computer graphics ...
not that I "do" CGI.
the problem with calling a mere phaasespace,
reified into some silly spacetime,
is precisely this nebulous lightconeage
of "time-like" and "space-like,"
which is a totally elementary distinction
in a holographic movie (say ... and
that's why I *never* take off my 3d glasses,
except to make sure that a girl isn't just a hologram .-)
... and you are a dumb-ass (to irrational men, or in
Brian's swollen buzzwording an) "ad hominemaniac."
>
The greatest danger is <snip> a coronal mass ejection
<snip crap which has nothing to do with Albert's Twin>
>
hanson wrote:
Now, Brian, since you have elected to label yourself
as "irrational" you should be proud of your daily load
of Toilette Paper essays. Price the Load, Halleluiah,
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
> > You are
> > the one who claimed there is some sort of natural units describing
> > spacetime. So, what is this particular natural unit that describes
> > spacetime? <shrug>
>
> Yes, I know you've asked me this. You are under the delusion that you
> are owed what you ask for. [Rest of bullshit snipped]
Yes, it is absolutely stupid to claim the measurement of aging process
is spacetime (the pathlength nonsense). <shrug>
So, allow Him to conclude all these discussions. The Einstein
Dingleberries who are stuck in this delusion ought to be flunked out
in the academics. That leaves a very serious and fatal paradox to
SR. SR is just garbage. SR stands for “Shit Related”. <shrug>
Once again, anyone will gain a better insight to why these idiots
should be flunked out the academics by understanding what these idiots
believe in:
The bottom line is that Jews in the Mass Media,
did society a great disservice when they
promoted Einstein's false quanta of energy, and
his Relativity that uses rubber rulers and clocks,
instead of the minimum number of rigid, linear
orthogonals, and ONE quantum unit source.
The question is:
do Jews actually believe this stuff, (Relativity,
photons, quanta of energy, warped spaces,
time travel, aging twins, etc.)?
>
or is this hyped by Jews in the Mass Media
and Education to waste the time, money and
minds of innocent Goyim?
>
Einstein wrote:
.... in his own words, just a year before he
folded his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked
the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....
Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Italian friend Besso:
why don't one of you antisteinians see if
you can deal with the problem of the angular momenta
of atoms, that are being accelerated?
incidentally, the problem of tiling the plane
with a monotile has been called the Einstein Problem,
"one tile," and I recently read of yet another
problem that he worked on, that had been ignored.
there really is a Department of Einsteinmania,
hte Musical Dept.
have a nice God-am ______, fool.
else, you just ad-hominemaniac & Jew-bater.
||||Brian wrote:||| I've seen you post some interesting things
>
hanson wrote:
Then enjoy'em & refrain making idiot responses that
have nothing to do with what I have said. Why should I
be kind to a coat-tail rider like yourself? .... ahahaha....
>
||||Brian wrote:||| you never actually crtique SR, viz,
||||Brian wrote:||| the non-necessity of using relativity
>
hanson wrote:
Who are you, being a spineless coat tail rider, to tell
me whether and how I should critique SR?... ahahaha....
>
||||Brian wrote:||| you just ad-hominemaniac &...
>
hanson wrote:
Brian you just said, in your usual swollen buzz wording
parlance, that you are an "irrational man" ... ahahaha..,
which is true, considering your mindless coat-tail riding
and your daily composts of toilette essays... ahahaha...
>
||||Brian wrote:||| you just a ... Jew-bater.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... Me?.. moi?.. Me, do "bate",
= "moderate or do lessen the force or intensity of Jews?"
ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Good one!..but it shows
that you have NO idea what you are talking about, Brian.
>
I would be the first one in 5769 years to "moderate or to
lessen the force or intensity of Jews". Nobody can do
that. Kikes are interesting and engaging. You are not
and neither is your coat tail riding and much less your
daily composts of toilette essays... kahahaha...
>
Brian here is a template for your intellectual rescue, the
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein a real proud Jew, Harold Wallace Rosenthal
||R:|| said:
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" are recited
||R:|| each year in the synagogue on the Day of Atonement.
||R:|| It allows all future obligations, oaths or pledges a
||R:|| Jew may engage in to "be deemed absolved, forgiven,
||R:|| annulled, and void, and made of no effect."
||R:|| This allows Jews to lie, subvert, cheat the Goyim.
||R:|| Our culture has raised us that way so it is not a sin
||R:|| for us to take any oath and break it. It's our teaching.
||R:|| We would all have a better understanding between
||R:|| Jews and gentiles, but you people don't have guts.
>
See Brian, Rosenthal is not a coat tail rider like you are.
Rosenthal has spine and guts. You, Brain have none...
but thanks for teh laughs, you Dreidel... ahahahahanson