Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372835 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 19:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <568C8A91.5D02@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373363 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > 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> That's a little unfair to say since black magic and calculus looks like the same language miost people... http://www.alchemywebsite.com/images/alchemical_processes_symbols.jpg https://eigenblogger.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/untitled-1.png?w=620 Didn't the inventor of calculus was a witchcraft blackmagic expert???? yous people don't knows you histoiries... yous better watch it before i drop a house on yous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 20:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d218ca7-4e5c-45ec-9987-a88d5d09d7aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373384 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > yous better watch it before i drop a house on yous. I'll call your bluff; go ahead and drop the house.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 20:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <568C97F1.3722@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373385 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > yous better watch it before i drop a house on yous. > > I'll call your bluff; go ahead and drop the house. give me those ruby slippers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 11:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5691632F.4304@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373386 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > yous better watch it before i drop a house on yous. > > > > I'll call your bluff; go ahead and drop the house. > > give me those ruby slippers. and your dog too!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f09c29a9-b7a4-4c3b-83f2-3419b745fae4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373363 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > 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/ Paul is still delusional. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64c0ea28-d126-47a3-ae81-2d5e78402d43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373389 |
And KW remains hopelessly clueless...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd608807-dc32-487b-9535-2ddd65f408d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373390 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 10:18:15 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > And KW remains hopelessly clueless... How so? As an amateur, you have offered no sound mathematics to justify the bullshit that you blindly believe in. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af0a2ea8-4c59-4ae2-a481-a4f6085f1bb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373393 |
Can't even answer a question that Tom can answer in 20 seconds. You are just a pretender! This is not about me, it is about you not knowing what you are rambling about, and this has been the case for a long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 16:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e8915f9-eaaa-47a8-8ffc-381024ff7342@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372991 |
On December 31, 2015 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 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? Amazing - but hardly surprising - Kookee Wookee, the renowned mathematical physicist, doesn't know the difference between x and dx! The Wookee continues his irresistible run toward Usenet immortality, to the cheers of the crowd - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 13:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20151230134827.c7a719254458a7a8f45902bb@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #372901 |
Koobee Wublee:
> 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
>
> [...] 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>
You have introduced two inertial frames of refer-
ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame
will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other
frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as
the two clocks are spatially separated.
But in order to bring them together again, the trav-
elling twin must make a U-turn and thus change his
frame of reference. In this new frame, just after
the turn-around, the observed time on Earth will be
different that before the turn-around, although it
will still seem to go slower by exactly the same
factor. This time-shift (and not scaling) breaks
the apparent symmetry between traveller and earth-
ling and resolves the paradox.
To understand the delay you might define this new
frame of reference by introducing another planet, at
the same distance from the star as the Earth but in
the opposite direction. A device at the star emits
a light impulse to both planets. Each impulse, upon
reaching the corresponding planet, sets the initial
conditions for a reference frame whose origin is at
this moment on the planet and which is moving toward
the star.
From the stationary frame of reference, the impulses
reach their planets simultaneously, while to the
traveller before the turn-around it will seem that
he started later, and after the turn it will seem to
him he started earlier, than the other impulse hit
the other planet.
Suppose distance to the star is d, and speed is v.
From the viewpoint of the observer on Earth every-
thing is simple:
Too = 2 * d / v
Tot = 2 * d /(v * gamma),
where Tot is the time the [o]bserver reads on the
[t]raveller's clocks, Too on his own. From the
viewpoint of the traveller, before the turn-around:
Ttt1 = d /(v * gamma)
Tto1 = Ttt1/gamma = d/(v * gamma^2)
After the turn-around, the traveller will have
switched to a new frame of reference, whence the
time on Earth will seem to differ by the following
time-shift:
Tdiff = d/gamma^2 (1/(c-v) - 1/(c+v)) =
= 2dv / c^2
The gammas in the denomitator account for length
contraction and the apparently slower rate of time
on Earth.
Upon arrival the times will be:
Ttt = 2 * Ttt1 = 2d/(v * gamma) [there and back]
Tto = Tto1 + Tdiff + Tto1 = ... = 2d/v
[there, switch ref. frame, and back]
So when the traveller returns, we have:
Tto = Too
Tot = Ttt
No contradition.
P.S.: However messy, this explanation is my own I
will gladly answer any quesions about it.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 07:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n60lh9$mpr$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372921 |
On 12/30/2015 4:48 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as > the two clocks are spatially separated. > > But in order to bring them together again, the trav- > elling twin must make a U-turn and thus change his > frame of reference. In this new frame, just after > the turn-around, the observed time on Earth will be > different that before the turn-around, although it > will still seem to go slower by exactly the same > factor. This time-shift (and not scaling) breaks > the apparent symmetry between traveller and earth- > ling and resolves the paradox. > This has been explained already to Koobee Wublee. He is unable to grasp it and doesn't have the math skills to follow it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 18:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n612nf$m82$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372924 |
Op 30-dec-2015 om 14:17 schreef Odd Bodkin: > On 12/30/2015 4:48 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > >> >> You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- >> ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame >> will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other >> frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as >> the two clocks are spatially separated. >> >> But in order to bring them together again, the trav- >> elling twin must make a U-turn and thus change his >> frame of reference. In this new frame, just after >> the turn-around, the observed time on Earth will be >> different that before the turn-around, although it >> will still seem to go slower by exactly the same >> factor. This time-shift (and not scaling) breaks >> the apparent symmetry between traveller and earth- >> ling and resolves the paradox. >> > > This has been explained already to Koobee Wublee. He is unable to > grasp it and doesn't have the math skills to follow it. Explained 237 times, to be precise. Properly and effectively explaining it requires the gentle but insistent force of a hammer. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 11:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56842EEA.2034@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #372921 |
Anton Shepelev wrote: > > Koobee Wublee: > > > 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 > > > > [...] 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> > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as > the two clocks are spatially separated. Okay, one item at a time... When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? For those that don't know the definition of "When".. https://www.google.com/#q=define+when So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 11:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c1a2e833-8e1e-46d5-9754-798808c0adf7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372940 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:22:15 PM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > Anton Shepelev wrote: > > > > Koobee Wublee: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > [...] 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> > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > > frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as > > the two clocks are spatially separated. > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? when you dont put in new batteries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 22:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5684CDC3.79A2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #372943 |
01405 wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:22:15 PM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > > Anton Shepelev wrote: > > > > > > Koobee Wublee: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > [...] 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> > > > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > > > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > > > frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as > > > the two clocks are spatially separated. > > > > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > when you dont put in new batteries. Since the clock ticks slower even with new batteries...then it isn't the batteries that is slowing the clock. So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? Not What is slowing the clock, The question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 01:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c0da1a24-c198-4ee5-abe3-d5f289eb5e1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372982 |
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 6:39:29 AM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > 01405 wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:22:15 PM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Anton Shepelev wrote: > > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > [...] 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> > > > > > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > > > > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > > > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > > > > frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as > > > > the two clocks are spatially separated. > > > > > > > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > when you dont put in new batteries. > > > Since the clock ticks slower even with new batteries...then it isn't the batteries that is > slowing the clock. hmm. interesting. does it only tick slower when it is moved around perhaps? likely in that case the batteries might not be firmly seated with resultant buildup of an electrostatic charge, which normally is not a problem, but movement of charge constitutes an electric current and electric current will generate a magnetic field which are well known to play havoc with small metallic cog wheels and such-like to be found inside your typical clock. suggestion: (a) fix it securely in place. (b) see that it is well-earthed. > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > Not What is slowing the clock, > > > The question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5685AD6F.5196@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #372992 |
01405 wrote: > > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 6:39:29 AM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > > 01405 wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:22:15 PM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Anton Shepelev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] 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> > > > > > > > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > > > > > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > > > > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > > > > > frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as > > > > > the two clocks are spatially separated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > when you dont put in new batteries. > > > > > > Since the clock ticks slower even with new batteries...then it isn't the batteries that is > > slowing the clock. > > hmm. interesting. does it only tick slower when it is moved around perhaps? likely in that case the batteries might not be firmly seated with resultant buildup of an electrostatic charge, which normally is not a problem, but movement of charge constitutes an electric current and electric current will generate a magnetic field which are well known to play havoc with small metallic cog wheels and such-like to be found inside your typical clock. suggestion: (a) fix it securely in place. (b) see tha > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > Not What is slowing the clock, > > > > > > The question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? I was thinking of mechanical clocks...the kind you wind up. The question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? Not, which way do you put the batteries in a clock... Do you know what time it is now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 18:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2594fedc-9f18-4dc5-b39c-4b16c8efdbdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373048 |
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:34:16 PM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > 01405 wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 6:39:29 AM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > > > 01405 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:22:15 PM UTC, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Anton Shepelev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > > > > > > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > > > > > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > > > > > > frame. There is no contradiction in that as long as > > > > > > the two clocks are spatially separated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > > > > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > when you dont put in new batteries. > > > > > > > > > Since the clock ticks slower even with new batteries...then it isn't the batteries that is > > > slowing the clock. > > > > hmm. interesting. does it only tick slower when it is moved around perhaps? likely in that case the batteries might not be firmly seated with resultant buildup of an electrostatic charge, which normally is not a problem, but movement of charge constitutes an electric current and electric current will generate a magnetic field which are well known to play havoc with small metallic cog wheels and such-like to be found inside your typical clock. suggestion: (a) fix it securely in place. (b) see tha > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > Not What is slowing the clock, > > > > > > > > > The question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > I was thinking of mechanical clocks...the kind you wind up. > > > > > The question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? Not, which way do > you put the batteries in a clock... > > > Do you know what time it is now? umm. way past my bedtime I fancy, unless my clock is on the fritz too. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 00:03 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20151231000308.2998e4489f8d47a779b45fd4@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #372940 |
The Starmaker to Anton Shepelev on the twins paradox: > > You have introduced two inertial frames of > > reference, in which case yes, the clocks in > > each frame will seem to tick slower to an ob- > > server in the other frame. There is no contra- > > diction in that as long as the two clocks are > > spatially separated. > > Okay, one item at a time... > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slow- > er? You do not seem to know the meaning of 'seem': To appear, or to appear to be; to have a show or semblance; to present an appearance; to look; to strike one's apprehension or fancy as being; to be taken as. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n61hib$o4v$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372948 |
Anton Shepelev wrote: > To appear, or to appear to be; to have a show or semblance; to present > an appearance; to look; to strike one's apprehension or fancy as > being; to be taken as. Because is NOT an appearance, Antone. Please relearn your tensors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web