Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372835 > unrolled thread

Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800
    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 05:09 -0800
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-29 15:45 +0100
        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 07:43 -0800
    Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 06:35 -0800
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-28 18:13 +0300
        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 15:26 -0800
          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-29 18:50 +0300
            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:06 -0800
              Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-30 11:06 +0100
                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:42 -0800
                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-31 10:02 +0100
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:18 -0800
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-02 14:25 +0100
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 21:39 -0800
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-03 15:22 +0100
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 09:27 -0800
                              Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-04 20:43 +0100
                                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:50 -0800
                                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-05 20:47 +0100
                                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 19:31 -0800
                                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 20:01 -0800
                                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 20:28 -0800
                                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-09 11:44 -0800
                                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:09 -0800
                                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 22:18 -0800
                                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800
                                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 23:10 -0800
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 16:45 -0800
              Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-30 13:48 +0300
                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 07:17 -0600
                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-12-30 18:02 +0100
                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 11:22 -0800
                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 11:48 -0800
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 22:40 -0800
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 01:21 -0800
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:47 -0800
                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 00:03 +0300
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 21:15 +0000
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:40 +0300
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:14 +0000
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 14:32 -0800
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:32 +0300
                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:23 -0800
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:26 -0800
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 19:38 -0800
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:20 -0800
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:24 -0800
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:09 -0800
                              Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 05:49 -0800
                                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 16:59 +0100
                                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 08:02 -0800
                              Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-04 08:45 -0800
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0800
                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:36 -0800
                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:30 -0800
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 00:35 +0000
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 22:05 -0800
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 19:11 -0800
                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:16 +0300
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 14:03 +0100
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:07 +0000
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 09:20 -0600
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 16:08 +0000
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 08:41 -0800
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 10:57 -0600
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:33 +0100
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:50 -0800
                              Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:08 +0100
                                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:14 -0800
                                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 15:30 +0100
                                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:56 -0800
                                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 16:30 +0100
                                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 07:54 -0800
                                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:23 +0000
                                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100
                                Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:24 -0800
                                  Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-02 10:46 +0100
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 18:59 +0000
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 12:08 -0800
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-01 08:34 -0800
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:42 +0000
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:38 -0800
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:07 +0100
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 15:58 +0000
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:26 -0800
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 14:10 -0800
                            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:11 -0800
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 20:06 +0300
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 15:22 -0600
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 02:34 +0300
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:28 +0100
                        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:35 -0800
                          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 22:22 -0800
                      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:23 -0800
                    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:21 -0800
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 07:15 -0800
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-28 16:07 +0000
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-28 21:43 +0100
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800
    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 21:09 -0800
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 22:35 -0800
        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:38 -0800
    Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:31 -0800
      Re: Is Pentcho's Brain Sane? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 05:07 -0800
      Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 15:00 -0800
    Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 09:06 -0800
      Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 11:02 -0800
        Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 19:44 +0000
          Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 13:26 -0800
            Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 22:12 +0000
              Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#372835 — Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ 
 Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/ 
  Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory - Forbes

Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

The above multiple absurdity cannot be produced by a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372841

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 3:08:02 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ 
>  Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/ 
>   Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory - Forbes
> 
> Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no:
> 
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
>  Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David
> Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on
> the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...)
> For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's
> clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-
> around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion
> of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."
> 
> The above multiple absurdity cannot be produced by a SCIENTIFIC theory.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Science is all about observation, forming hypotheses and making testable
predictions.  Thus special relativity, the theory that applies in Morin's
scenario, has been tested and found to be extremely accurate in its
range of applicability.  AFAIK, no one has performed this experiment, but
HALF of the experiment is performed daily in particle accelerators.  The
only absurd thing here is Preposterous Pentcho, Purveyor of Poppycock.

The postulates of SR have also been tested to high accuracy and, contrary
to Puerile Pentcho's preposterous poppycock, have also been confirmed.
Thus, mathematical logic concludes that the LT is correct and Morin is
justified in presenting his scenario as a valid prediction.  

General relativity has been tested in the Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971
and repeated in 1976 within 1% of predictions.  GR has also been confirmed
by numerous experiments, such as:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

http://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw14/docs/papers/sci7b_jcm.pdf

and they all confirm relativity, the railings of obstreperous liars and
simpletons notwithstanding.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372879

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:72c4463c-f5e8-41b4-8be0-ecf524a014c3@googlegroups.com...

|The postulates of SR have also been tested to high accuracy and, contrary
|to Puerile Pentcho's preposterous poppycock, have also been confirmed.

A lie, common between relativistic morons.
The Shit predicted muons well, as they are simple.
Neither real clocks, nor real observers matches
its idiocies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372881

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:45:11 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> A lie, common between relativistic morons.
> The Shit predicted muons well, as they are simple.
> Neither real clocks, nor real observers matches
> its idiocies.

It's really sad that you get your kicks from telling lies, writing
vulgarities and making unwarranted comments with pigeon English that
makes no sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372847

Einstein's original absurdity:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ 
 ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." 

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf 
 SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?" 

Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that: 

(A) for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; 

(B) for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B. 

Clearly there is a contradiction which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372848

Pentcho Valev:

>   a.  for  an  observer in the moving clock's sys-
>       tem, the stationary clock at B  lags  behind
>       the moving clock;
>
>   b.  for  a stationary observer, the moving clock
>       lags behind the stationary clock at B.
>
> Clearly there is a contradiction which means  that
> the  underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-
> speed-of-light postulate, is false.

It is not a contradiction  because  the  clocks  are
spatially  separate  and  thus cannot participate in
the same event.  This situation is  standard  in  SR
and is resolved without paradox, because  relativism
rejects  the  humanly-understandable  invariants  of
matter,  space, and time, which are linear and addi-
tive and with respect to which any non-linearity and
curvature can be defined.

In  materialism,  any physical process is simply mo-
tion of matter through space in time, while relativ-
ity  is an idealistic theory based on arbitrary pos-
tulates, as Einstain himself admitted:

   If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis  of
   theoretical  physics cannot be extracted from ex-
   perience but must be freely invented, can we ever
   hope to find the right way? I answer without hes-
   itation that there is, in  my  opinion,  a  right
   way,  and  that  we  are capable of finding it. I
   hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality,
   as the ancients dreamed.

i.e.  by contemplation and fantasying, without look-
ing into the way things work, whence the  phenomono-
logical approach.  Nobody cares what internal mecha-
nisms lie behind the space-time and make it what  it
is.  It is viewed merely as a mathematical construc-
tion without internal structure, and you  can't  pry
into  a mathematical abstraction, for it is shallow.
You could study how a clock is made or what process-
es in the ether cause such and such phenomena, while
relativity forbids you to look into  the  causes  of
things by replacing material reality with pure math,
i.e. idealism.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372864

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7:13:34 AM UTC-8, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> It is not a contradiction  because  the  clocks  are
> spatially  separate  and  thus cannot participate in
> the same event.

This is just not true.  The application of the Twin paradox calls out to add up all the event durations (integration of discrete event time).  When the twins do meet again, all the sums of the discrete event time must not result in any contradiction, but it does.  <shrug>

The stupid god of relativity aka Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar has to whisper into the ears of Einstein dingleberries on non-existent laws of physics to resolve the paradox.  <shrug>

The man-made laws of physics, of course, is the mythic laws that only apply to non-inertial frames of reference which classical relativity, special relativity, nor general relativity manifests so.  It is all made up bullshit.  Relativity is all bullshit.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372882

Koobee Wublee to Anton Shepelev:
> > Pentcho Valev:
> >
> > >   a.  for  an  observer  in the moving clock's
> > >       system, the stationary clock at  B  lags
> > >       behind the moving clock;
> > >
> > >   b.  for  a  stationary  observer, the moving
> > >       clock lags behind the  stationary  clock
> > >       at B.
> > >
> > > Clearly  there  is a contradiction which means
> > > that the underlying premise,  Einstein's  1905
> > > constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
> >
> > It is not a contradiction because the clocks are
> > spatially separate and thus  cannot  participate
> > in  the  same event.  This situation is standard
> > in SR and is resolved without  paradox,  because
> > relativism  rejects  the  humanly-understandable
> > invariants of matter, space, and time, which are
> > linear  and  additive  and with respect to which
> > any non-linearity and curvature can be defined.
>
> This is just not true.   The  application  of  the
> Twin paradox calls out to add up all the event du-
> rations (integration of discrete event time).

I was talking about the situation Pentho descibes in
the  quoted  fragment.  In the Twin paradox, you can
integrate the proper times for both  the  twins  and
compare  the results.  The traveller will have spent
less time.

> When the twins do meet again, all the sums of  the
> discrete event time must not result in any contra-
> diction, but it does.

What is "discrete event time"?  Their  proper  times
will  be different all right, but that is not a con-
tradiction.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372901

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-8, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The application of the Twin paradox calls out to add up all the event
> > durations (integration of discrete event time).  When the twins do
> > meet again, all the sums of the discrete event time must not result
> > in any contradiction, but it does.
>
> What is "discrete event time"?

Koobee Wublee would like to write the Lorentz transform as the following where the unprimed frame is using coordinate system (t, x, y, z) to describe (thus observe) an event, and at the same time, the primed frame is using coordinate system (t', x', dy', dz') to describe the same event.  <shrug>

**  c dt' = (c dt - v dx) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dy' = dy
**  dz' = dz

(dt, dx, dy, dz) and (dt', dx', dy', dz') are observations of the same discrete event in spacetime.  Thus, dt and dt' are discrete event time.  <shrug>

> In the Twin paradox, you can integrate the proper times for both the
> twins and compare the results.

Yes, that is correct.  But before we do just that, let's condense the above equations into the following single concise equation by squaring all the equations and subject the spatial ones from the temporal one.  This was exactly what Minkowski did to come up with spacetime.  <shrug>

**  c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2 = c^2 dt^ - 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 the relative speed of the frames (primed and the unprimed), v, vanishes.  Only the observed speeds (by the primed and the unprimed) of the same event show.  Then,

** dt' sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt sqrt(1 - B^2)

Where

**  B'2^2 c^2 = (ds'/dt')^2
**  B2^2 c^2 = (ds/dt)^2

> Their proper times will be different all right,

The Twin paradox is not about comparing the proper times where the proper time can only be the local time.  The Twin paradox is about comparing the observed time of the other twin to the observer's own time, AND VICE VERSA.  The concept of VICE VERSA here is very important.  Thus, you must get two equations of describing so.  <shrug>

> but that is not a contradiction.  The traveller will have spent less
> time.

Say the twins are A and B.  When A is observing B,

** dt_AB sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt_BB

Or

** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B'^2)

Where

**  A = primed observing the event
**  B = unprimed also observing the event which is itself
**  dt_AB = time at B as observed by A
**  dt_BB = time at B

When B is observing A,

** dt_AA = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B'^2)

Or

** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B'^2)

Where

**  A = primed also observing the event which is itself
**  B = unprimed observing the event
**  dt_AA = time at A
**  dt_BA = time at A as observed by B
**  B^2 = B'^2

To sum up, we have

** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B^2)
** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2)

Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is absolutely fatal to the religion of relativity.  After brainstorming wishing for a divine intervention, the Einstein dingleberries had to create a new law of physics that divinely apply only to non-inertial frames of reference, but that is total bullshit.  <shrug>

> > The man-made laws of physics, of course, is the mythic laws that
> > only apply to non-inertial frames of reference which classical
> > relativity, special relativity, nor general relativity manifests
> > so.  It is all made up bullshit.  Relativity is all bullshit.
> > <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372919

On 29.12.2015 22:06, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-8, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> The application of the Twin paradox calls out to add up all the event
>>> durations (integration of discrete event time).  When the twins do
>>> meet again, all the sums of the discrete event time must not result
>>> in any contradiction, but it does.

"add up the event durations" !!! :-D
>>
>> What is "discrete event time"?
>
> Koobee Wublee would like to write the Lorentz transform as the following where the unprimed
> frame is using coordinate system (t, x, y, z) to describe (thus observe) an event,
> and at the same time, the primed frame is using coordinate system (t', x', dy', dz')
> to describe the same event.  <shrug>
>
> **  c dt' = (c dt - v dx) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
> **  dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
> **  dy' = dy
> **  dz' = dz
>
> (dt, dx, dy, dz) and (dt', dx', dy', dz') are observations of the same discrete event in spacetime.
>  Thus, dt and dt' are discrete event time.  <shrug>

This is nonsense. Differentials have no particular value
and can not be observed.
  dy' = dy means that dy'/dy = 1, it says nothing about
the value of dy' or dy.

>> In the Twin paradox, you can integrate the proper times for both the
>> twins and compare the results.
>
> Yes, that is correct.

As can be seen here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
https://paulba.no/twins.html

>  But before we do just that, let's condense the above equations into
> the following single concise equation by squaring all the equations
> and subject the spatial ones from the temporal one.
> This was exactly what Minkowski did to come up with spacetime.  <shrug>
>
> **  c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2 = c^2 dt^ - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

  The metric in flat space-time is:
    c^2 d\tau^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
  where \tau is the proper time (what a clock would show).
  To find the proper time \tau of the clock we have to integrate
  the equation above over the path in space time along which
  the clock is moving.
  (I will use "clock" in stead of "twin" in the following.)

So for Koobee's equation above to make sense, we must have:

c^2 d\tau^2 = c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2
   and
c^2 d\tau^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

That is, it is the proper time of the same, single clock
expressed in two different frames of reference.

And of course the proper time of a clock is invariant
and can be calculated in any _inertial_ frame.
  c^2 d\tau^2 = c^2 d\tau^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 the relative speed of the frames (primed and the unprimed), v, vanishes.

It doesn't vanish, it is simply never defined.
You are using two different frames of reference and
have said nothing about their relative speed (or anything else).

> Only the observed speeds (by the primed and the unprimed) of the same event show.  Then,
>
> ** dt' sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt sqrt(1 - B^2)

where B'and B are the speed of the single clock
in the primed and unprimed frame respectively.

So d\tau = dt' sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt sqrt(1 - B^2)
or:
  The rate of the clock as observed in the primed frame is:
    d\tau/dt' = sqrt(1 - B'^2)
and:
  The rate of the clock as observed in the unprimed frame is:
   d\tau/dt = sqrt(1 - B^2)

What did you think the equation showed? :-D
>
> Where
>
> **  B'2^2 c^2 = (ds'/dt')^2
> **  B2^2 c^2 = (ds/dt)^2
>
>> Their proper times will be different all right,
>
> The Twin paradox is not about comparing the proper times
> where the proper time can only be the local time.

The proper time is what the twin's clock show.

> The Twin paradox is about comparing the observed time of the other twin
> to the observer's own time, AND VICE VERSA.

But there is but one proper time (one clock) in your
equations above. You have not compared two.

> The concept of VICE VERSA here is very important.
> Thus, you must get two equations of describing so.  <shrug>

You can see the twin scenario form both twin's perspective here:
https://paulba.no/twins.html

I could have given you the equations in B's accelerated frame,
but they are differential equations which are very hard
to solve analytically. In the simulation above, they are
solved numerically. You should however note that the proper
time of both twins are the same calculated in  A's
inertial frame and B's accelerated frame.
There are no contradictions.

>
>> but that is not a contradiction.  The traveller will have spent less
>> time.

More nonsense:
>
> Say the twins are A and B.  When A is observing B,
>
> ** dt_AB sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt_BB
>
> Or
>
> ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B'^2)
>
> Where
>
> **  A = primed observing the event
> **  B = unprimed also observing the event which is itself
> **  dt_AB = time at B as observed by A
> **  dt_BB = time at B
>
> When B is observing A,
>
> ** dt_AA = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B'^2)
>
> Or
>
> ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B'^2)
>
> Where
>
> **  A = primed also observing the event which is itself
> **  B = unprimed observing the event
> **  dt_AA = time at A
> **  dt_BA = time at A as observed by B
> **  B^2 = B'^2
>
> To sum up, we have
>
> ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2)
>
> Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is absolutely fatal to the religion of relativity.
>  After brainstorming wishing for a divine intervention, the Einstein dingleberries had to create
> a new law of physics that divinely apply only to non-inertial frames of reference, but that is total
> bullshit.  <shrug>

<shrug>

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372960

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 2:06:13 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Koobee  Wublee  would  like  to  write the Lorentz
> > transform as  the  following  where  the  unprimed
> > frame  is  using coordinate system (t, x, y, z) to
> > describe (thus observe) an event, and at the  same
> > time,  the primed frame is using coordinate system
> > (t', x', dy', dz') to  describe  the  same  event.
> > <shrug>
>
> > **  c dt' = (c dt - v dx / c) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
> > **  dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
> > **  dy' = dy
> > **  dz' = dz
>
> > [...]   Say  the twins are A and B.  When A is ob-
> > serving B,
>
> > ** dt_AB sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt_BB
>
> > Or
>
> > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B'^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > **  A = primed observing the event
> > **  B = unprimed also observing the event which is itself
> > **  dt_AB = time at B as observed by A
> > **  dt_BB = time at B
>
> > When B is observing A,
>
> > ** dt_AA = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B'^2)
>
> > Or
>
> > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B'^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > **  A = primed also observing the event which is itself
> > **  B = unprimed observing the event
> > **  dt_AA = time at A
> > **  dt_BA = time at A as observed by B
> > **  B^2 = B'^2
>
> > To sum up, we have
>
> > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2)
>
> > Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is ab-
> > solutely fatal to the religion of relativity.  Af-
> > ter brainstorming wishing for a  divine  interven-
> > tion,  the  Einstein dingleberries had to create a
> > new law of physics that  divinely  apply  only  to
> > non-inertial  frames of reference, but that is to-
> > tal bullshit.  <shrug>

> "add up the event durations" !!! :-D

Paul needs to understand what integration means.  <shrug>

> This is nonsense. Differentials have no particular value
> and can not be observed.

Ignorant comment.  According to Paul's illogic, the following relativistic speed can never be derived.  <shrug>

**  dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v) / (1 - v dx/dt / c^2)

>   dy' = dy means that dy'/dy = 1, it says nothing about
> the value of dy' or dy.

Not even wrong.  <shrug>

> As can be seen here:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
> https://paulba.no/twins.html

Still wrong.  <shrug>

> [rest of crap snipped]

<shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372991

On 31.12.2015 00:42, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 2:06:13 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>
>>>  (dt, dx, dy, dz) and (dt', dx', dy', dz') are observations
>>>  of the same discrete event in spacetime.
>>>  Thus, dt and dt' are discrete event time.  <shrug>
>>
>> This is nonsense. Differentials have no particular value
>> and can not be observed.
>
> Ignorant comment.  According to Paul's illogic,
> the following relativistic speed can never be derived.  <shrug>
>
> **  dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v) / (1 - v dx/dt / c^2)
>
>>    dy' = dy means that dy'/dy = 1, it says nothing about
>>    the value of dy' or dy.
>
> Not even wrong.  <shrug>

OK, Wublee.
Say you measure the speed of an object in the primed frame
to be:  dx'/dt' = 376 m/s, dy'/dt' = 0, dz'/dt' = 0

According to Koobee Wublee (dt', dx', dy', dz')
are observations of an event in spacetime.
Can you tell me how you observe  dt', dx', dy' and dz'
and what are their values measured in seconds and metres?

Koobee Wublee will give no sensible answer.


A correct use of calculus applied on the twin "paradox"
can be seen here:

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373060

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:02:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > (dt, dx, dy, dz) and (dt', dx', dy', dz') are observations
> > of the same discrete event in spacetime.
> > Thus, dt and dt' are discrete event time.  <shrug>
>
> > According to Paul's illogic, the following relativistic speed can
> > never be derived.  <shrug>
>
> > **  dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v) / (1 - v dx/dt / c^2)
>
> According to Koobee Wublee (dt', dx', dy', dz')
> are observations of an event in spacetime.
> Can you tell me how you observe  dt', dx', dy' and dz'
> and what are their values measured in seconds and metres?

Ask Tom.  <shrug>

> [rest of ranting nonsense snipped]

Einstein dingleberries just cannot carry on an intelligent discussion to save their lives.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373124

On 01.01.2016 04:18, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:02:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 31.12.2015 00:42, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 2:06:13 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  (dt, dx, dy, dz) and (dt', dx', dy', dz') are observations
>>>>>  of the same discrete event in spacetime.
>>>>>  Thus, dt and dt' are discrete event time.  <shrug>
>>>>
>>>> This is nonsense. Differentials have no particular value
>>>> and can not be observed.
>>>
>>> Ignorant comment.  According to Paul's illogic,
>>> the following relativistic speed can never be derived.  <shrug>
>>>
>>> **  dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v) / (1 - v dx/dt / c^2)
>>>
>>>>    dy' = dy means that dy'/dy = 1, it says nothing about
>>>>    the value of dy' or dy.
>>>
>>> Not even wrong.  <shrug>
>>
>> OK, Wublee.
>> Say you measure the speed of an object in the primed frame
>> to be:  dx'/dt' = 376 m/s, dy'/dt' = 0, dz'/dt' = 0
>>
>> According to Koobee Wublee (dt', dx', dy', dz')
>> are observations of an event in spacetime.
>> Can you tell me how you observe  dt', dx', dy' and dz'
>> and what are their values measured in seconds and metres?
>
> Ask Tom.  <shrug>
>
>> Koobee Wublee will give no sensible answer.
>
> Einstein dingleberries just cannot carry on an intelligent discussion to save their lives.  <shrug>

Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-D

Of course it is impossible to defend the claim that
(dt', dx', dy', dz') are observations of an event in spacetime.

Calculus is "mathemagic" to Koobee Wublee. :-D

>>
>> A correct use of calculus applied on the twin "paradox"
>> can be seen here:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373164

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 5:25:35 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> Of course it is impossible to defend the claim that (dt', dx', dy', dz')
> are observations of an event in spacetime.

Woobee Wublee does not have to defend that.  (dt, dx, dy, dz), (dt', dx', dy', dz'), and (dt", dx", dy", dz") are all observations to a mutually observed event.  That is what makes a transformation regardless if Galilean, or something else.  Paul fails miserably on the basics.  <shrug>

> > Einstein dingleberries just cannot carry on an intelligent discussion
> > to save their lives.  <shrug>
> 
> Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-D

Oh, Paul is right again.  For the record, Paul has failed to identify the following as the Lorentz transform.  <shrug>

**  c dt' = (c dt - v dx / c) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dy' = dy
**  dz' = dz

Why?  Because the above works for any frames of reference even for non-inertial ones, and that would show the following of Paul's works as "mathemagics".  <shrug>

**  https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

> Calculus is "mathemagic" to Koobee Wublee. :-D

No, just Paul's overly creative mathematical practices are "mathemagics" to Koobee Wublee and should also be to all scholars of science.  You see.  Paul likes to make its own laws of physics to boast its "mathemagics".  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373183

On 03.01.2016 06:39, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 5:25:35 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>
>>>  (dt, dx, dy, dz) and (dt', dx', dy', dz') are observations
>>>  of the same discrete event in spacetime.
>>>  Thus, dt and dt' are discrete event time.  <shrug>
>>
>> This is nonsense. Differentials have no particular value
>> and can not be observed.
>>
>> Of course it is impossible to defend the claim that (dt', dx', dy', dz')
>> are observations of an event in spacetime.
>
> Woobee Wublee does not have to defend that.  (dt, dx, dy, dz), (dt', dx', dy', dz'),
> and (dt", dx", dy", dz") are all observations to a mutually observed event.

Koobee Wublee has a habit of repeating indefensible claims!

Paul rest his case. <shrug>

>  that would show the following of Paul's works as "mathemagics".  <shrug>
>
> **  https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>
>> Calculus is "mathemagic" to Koobee Wublee. :-D

Thanks for confirming that Paul's correct application
of calculus is mathemagics to Koobee Wublee! :-D

-- 
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373191

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> Of course it is impossible to defend the claim that (dt', dx', dy', dz')
> are observations of an event in spacetime.

Woobee Wublee does not have to defend that.  (dt, dx, dy, dz), (dt', dx', dy', dz'), and (dt", dx", dy", dz") are all observations to a mutually observed event.  That is what makes a transformation regardless if Galilean, or something else.  Paul fails miserably on the basics.  <shrug>

> > Einstein dingleberries just cannot carry on an intelligent discussion
> > to save their lives.  <shrug>
> 
> Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-D

For the record, Paul has failed to identify the following as the Lorentz transform.  <shrug>

**  c dt' = (c dt - v dx / c) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dy' = dy
**  dz' = dz

Why?  Because the above works for any frames of reference even for non-inertial ones, and that would show the following of Paul's works as "mathemagics".  <shrug>

**  https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

> Calculus is "mathemagic" to Koobee Wublee. :-D

No, just Paul's overly creative mathematical practices are "mathemagics" to Koobee Wublee and should also be to all scholars of science.  You see.  Paul likes to make its own laws of physics to boast its "mathemagics".  <shrug>

> Paul rest his case. <shrug>

There is no doubt Paul will try to create more of its silly "mathemagics" during this upcoming long winter in Norway, and Koobee Wublee will just identify them as black magic.  Please stay tuned.  Bye, Paul.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373291

On 03.01.2016 18:27, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 03.01.2016 06:39, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>
>>>  that would show the following of Paul's works as "mathemagics".  <shrug>
>>>
>>> **  https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that Paul's correct application
>> of calculus is mathemagics to Koobee Wublee!
>
> There is no doubt Paul will try to create more of
> its silly "mathemagics" during this upcoming long winter in Norway,
> and Koobee Wublee will just identify them as black magic.
> Please stay tuned.  Bye, Paul.  <shrug>

Thanks to Koobee Wublee for identifying calculus as black magic. <shrug>

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373329

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:43:46 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 03.01.2016 18:27, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6BxrowPOUPI/7lMdt2zfDQAJ
>
> Thanks to Koobee Wublee for identifying calculus as black magic. <shrug>

It looks like Paul is getting very delusional.  If anyone reads Koobee Wublee's post above, there is not connection as to what Paul is referring to.  Yes, Paul after termination as a professor from Trondheim University has deteriorated mentally, intellectually, and personally.  Koobee Wublee shall leave Paul alone to chase after these imaginary chickens that Paul has claimed to be so fondly of chasing.  Chasing these imaginary chickens seems to be the only thing that makes Paul very happy.  <pity>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373363

On 05.01.2016 07:50, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:43:46 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > On 03.01.2016 18:27, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> On 03.01.2016 06:39, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6BxrowPOUPI/7lMdt2zfD
>>>>>
>>>>>  that would show the following of Paul's works as "mathemagics".  <shrug>
>>>>>
>>>>> **  https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming that Paul's correct application
>>>> of calculus is mathemagics to Koobee Wublee!
>>>
>>> There is no doubt Paul will try to create more of
>>> its silly "mathemagics" during this upcoming long winter in Norway,
>>> and Koobee Wublee will just identify them as black magic.
>>> Please stay tuned.  Bye, Paul.  <shrug>
>>
>> Thanks to Koobee Wublee for identifying calculus as black magic. <shrug>
>

Koobee Wublee using the only kind of arguments he know:

> It looks like Paul is getting very delusional.  If anyone reads Koobee Wublee's post above,
> [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6BxrowPOUPI/7lMdt2zfD]
> there is not connection as to what Paul is referring to.
> Yes, Paul after termination as a professor from Trondheim University has deteriorated mentally,
> intellectually, and personally.  Koobee Wublee shall leave Paul alone to chase after these
> imaginary chickens that Paul has claimed to be so fondly of chasing.
> Chasing these imaginary chickens seems to be the only thing that makes Paul very happy.  <pity>

Lethal, aren't they? <shrug>

I wonder why this correct application of calculus frustrates
Koobee Wublee so much that he has to call it "mathemagics"
and even "black magic":
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

I will accept his claim that calculus is black magic to him, though.<shrug>

Happy new year, Koobee! <shrug>

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web