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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359865 > unrolled thread

Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

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

Contents

  Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 17:54 -0700
    Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-07 12:04 +1000
      Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 21:39 -0700
        Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-07 14:52 +1000
          Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 00:08 -0700
            Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-07 19:05 +1000
              Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 23:42 -0700
            Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 06:27 -0700
      Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-08-07 10:02 -0600
    Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-06 20:18 -0700
      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 21:42 -0700
        Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-07 08:12 -0700
    Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 20:52 -0700
      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-06 21:14 -0700
    Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-07 00:46 -0400
      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 00:20 -0700
        Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-08-08 10:08 +0000
      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-07 08:29 -0700
        Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-07 12:57 -0400
    Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 00:40 -0700
    Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 07:28 -0500
      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 06:31 -0700
        Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-07 13:46 +0000
    Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-07 21:35 +0200
      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 14:22 -0700
        Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 17:33 -0700
          Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 21:29 -0700
        Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-08 16:23 +0200
          Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 21:49 -0700
            Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-09 14:24 +0200
              Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 21:21 -0700
                Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 09:52 +0200
                  Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 16:05 -0700
                    Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-11 22:23 +0200
                      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 16:01 -0700
                        Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-12 21:07 +0200
                          Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 21:32 -0700
                            Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-13 18:22 +0200
                      Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-12 07:38 -0700
          Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:59 -0700
    Re: Twin Paradox  - Engineering of Special Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-15 16:35 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#359865 — Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

**  The symmetry is established in the Lorentz transform where mutual time dilation becomes possible.  <shrug>

**  The Twin paradox comes about when the twins A and B starts out at rest. Then, B moves away and finally return to reunite with A at rest.  <shrug>

**  After some serious brain storming, the consensus is to manually add a law of physics where the Lorentz transform and thus the mutual time dilation is only valid under inertial frames of reference.  On the contrary, Special relativity does not even indicate such a manmade law of nature.  <shrug>

**  A simple resolution can now be hand waved to resolve the paradox by flipping the observed time dilation of the inertial frame.  To this day, there remains no sound mathematics to show so.  <shrug>

**  The religion of relativity is born, and Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is worshipped as the god.  <shrug>

**  Koobee Wublee points out that the traveling twin B can be allowed a period where B is moving but with no acceleration.  Thus, both twins are in inertial frames, and mutual time dilation must apply with non-null relative speed.  Any arbitrary time spent when both twins are in inertial frames with non-null relative speed spells out fatal contradiction to Special Relativity.  <shrug>

**  So far, any brain storming is fruitless to resolve the paradox.  Koobee Wublee urges the relativistic morons to manually create another physical law of nature.  That is the Lorentz transform does not apply to any frames that had been non-inertial in the past, and these buffoons can joyfully flip the time dilation equation just like the happy, mystic, good old time.  <shrug>

The following indoctrination is the core in the belief of Special Relativity.  <shrug>

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

<shrug>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#359869 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On 7/08/2015 10:54 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> **  Koobee Wublee points out that the traveling twin B can be allowed
> a period where B is moving but with no acceleration.  Thus, both
> twins are in inertial frames, and mutual time dilation must apply
> with non-null relative speed.  Any arbitrary time spent when both
> twins are in inertial frames with non-null relative speed spells out
> fatal contradiction to Special Relativity.  <shrug>
>

The twins can never meet again unless at least one twin changes frame
(that is, does not remain in the same inertial frame).

Sylvia.

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

#359873 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:04:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/08/2015 10:54 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > **  Koobee Wublee points out that the traveling twin B can be allowed
> > a period where B is moving but with no acceleration.  Thus, both
> > twins are in inertial frames, and mutual time dilation must apply
> > with non-null relative speed.  Any arbitrary time spent when both
> > twins are in inertial frames with non-null relative speed spells out
> > fatal contradiction to Special Relativity.  <shrug>
> 
> The twins can never meet again unless at least one twin changes frame
> (that is, does not remain in the same inertial frame).

If they end up 1 meter away at rest, would that constitute as "have united again"?  If they end up 10 meters away at rest, would that constitute as "have united again"?  Try to understand the physics of the Twin paradox instead of looking for bullshit to justify for the mysticism.  <shrug> 

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

#359876 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On 7/08/2015 2:39 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:04:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 7/08/2015 10:54 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> **  Koobee Wublee points out that the traveling twin B can be
>>> allowed a period where B is moving but with no acceleration.
>>> Thus, both twins are in inertial frames, and mutual time dilation
>>> must apply with non-null relative speed.  Any arbitrary time
>>> spent when both twins are in inertial frames with non-null
>>> relative speed spells out fatal contradiction to Special
>>> Relativity.  <shrug>
>>
>> The twins can never meet again unless at least one twin changes
>> frame (that is, does not remain in the same inertial frame).
>
> If they end up 1 meter away at rest, would that constitute as "have
> united again"?  If they end up 10 meters away at rest, would that
> constitute as "have united again"?  Try to understand the physics of
> the Twin paradox instead of looking for bullshit to justify for the
> mysticism.  <shrug>
>

They have to end up in the same place - no distance between them at all. 
Though I don't know why you raised that point.

The argument that there is a paradox is based on the supposed symmetry 
of the scenario. Since a change of inertial frame by just one twin 
breaks the symmetry, there is no paradox.

Sylvia.

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

#359887 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:52:39 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/08/2015 2:39 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > If they end up 1 meter away at rest, would that constitute as "have
> > united again"?  If they end up 10 meters away at rest, would that
> > constitute as "have united again"?  Try to understand the physics of
> > the Twin paradox instead of looking for bullshit to justify for the
> > mysticism.  <shrug>
> 
> They have to end up in the same place - no distance between them at
> all. 

No, they don't have to be as long as the relative speed between them is null.  Why?  Think both in the same inertial frames of reference.  <shrug>

> Though I don't know why you raised that point.

That is because Koobee Wublee has sensed Sylvia's confusion before time.  <shrug>
 
> The argument that there is a paradox is based on the supposed symmetry 
> of the scenario. Since a change of inertial frame by just one twin 
> breaks the symmetry, there is no paradox.

This is called hand waving and bullshit.  SR is the only place where one can bullshit its way around ass's end as long as this buffoon worships Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.  <shrug>

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

#359895 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On 7/08/2015 5:08 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:52:39 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 7/08/2015 2:39 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> If they end up 1 meter away at rest, would that constitute as
>>> "have united again"?  If they end up 10 meters away at rest,
>>> would that constitute as "have united again"?  Try to understand
>>> the physics of the Twin paradox instead of looking for bullshit
>>> to justify for the mysticism.  <shrug>
>>
>> They have to end up in the same place - no distance between them
>> at all.
>
> No, they don't have to be as long as the relative speed between them
> is null.  Why?  Think both in the same inertial frames of reference.
> <shrug>
>
>> Though I don't know why you raised that point.
>
> That is because Koobee Wublee has sensed Sylvia's confusion before
> time.  <shrug>
>
>> The argument that there is a paradox is based on the supposed
>> symmetry of the scenario. Since a change of inertial frame by just
>> one twin breaks the symmetry, there is no paradox.
>
> This is called hand waving and bullshit.  SR is the only place where
> one can bullshit its way around ass's end as long as this buffoon
> worships Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.  <shrug>
>

You can argue from symmetry, or you can argue from math.

You are doing neither.

Sylvia.

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

#360561 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:06:00 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > **  The symmetry is established in the Lorentz transform where mutual
> > time dilation becomes possible.  <shrug>
>
> > **  The Twin paradox comes about when the twins A and B starts out at
> > rest. Then, B moves away and finally return to reunite with A at rest.
> > <shrug>
>
> > **  After some serious brain storming, the consensus is to manually
> > add a law of physics where the Lorentz transform and thus the mutual
> > time dilation is only valid under inertial frames of reference.  On
> > the contrary, Special relativity does not even indicate such a
> > manmade law of nature.  <shrug>
>
> > **  A simple resolution can now be hand waved to resolve the paradox
> > by flipping the observed time dilation of the inertial frame.  To this
> > day, there remains no sound mathematics to show so.  <shrug>
>
> > **  The religion of relativity is born, and Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar is worshipped as the god.  <shrug>
>
> > **  Koobee Wublee points out that the traveling twin B can be allowed
> > a period where B is moving but with no acceleration.  Thus, both
> > twins are in inertial frames, and mutual time dilation must apply
> > with non-null relative speed.  Any arbitrary time spent when both
> > twins are in inertial frames with non-null relative speed spells out
> > fatal contradiction to Special Relativity.  <shrug>
>
> > **  So far, any brain storming is fruitless to resolve the paradox.
> > Koobee Wublee urges the relativistic morons to manually create
> > another physical law of nature.  That is the Lorentz transform does
> > not apply to any frames that had been non-inertial in the past, and
> > these buffoons can joyfully flip the time dilation equation just like
> > the happy, mystic, good old time.  <shrug>
>
> You can argue from symmetry, or you can argue from math.

Done just that.  <shrug>

> You are doing neither.

You are stupid and love to make up shit.  Does anyone else agree with your manmade law of physics that when the twins meet again distance apart with null speed and thus in the same inertial frame of reference, Lorentz transform and its symmetry do not apply further just like the bullshit about the non-inertial frames of reference?  <shrug>

Sylvia Else aka PD is currently writing textbooks for the next generations to further mystify them.  Yeah, live by eating your young.  What a fvcked up establishment of scientific communities!  <shrug>

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

#359910 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 3:08:14 AM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> This is called hand waving and bullshit. 

Yes, all you have done is handwaving. You failed to provide the math to support your claim.

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

#359930 — Re: Twin Paradox - Engineering of Special Relativity

On 8/6/15 8:04 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> The twins can never meet again unless at least one twin changes frame
> (that is, does not remain in the same inertial frame).
>

The frequently-used terminology about "changing frames" is misleading 
and unfortunate (although Silvia DOES clarify the comment well).  The 
accelerating twin can be considered to ALWAYS be at the spatial origin 
of a SINGLE frame (his "natural" reference frame).  During some time 
intervals of his life, that frame may be inertial, but there will always 
be at least a small time interval of his life where he is accelerating, 
and thus his natural frame will not be inertial then.  It is also 
possible for him to be accelerating during the entire trip, in which 
case there are NO time intervals of his life when he is inertial.

Defining and using the accelerating twin's natural frame is described here:

  https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

and here:

  "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, 
December 1999, p629.


-- 
   https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame
   All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".

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

#359870

Hello Mr Honorable Koobee Wublee

What If "the objects relativistic mass or time dilation" @ velocity of x m/s or acceleration of t m/s/s is in reference to the CMBR or space time itself instead of another object?  

The object's relativistic mass would be deposited back into the CMBR 

Relativistic mass of the object would interact with the CMBR proportional to the wavelength of the CMBR and the Compton wavelength 
Limiting the relative mass of any object to around 7 * 10^8 before formation of particle pairs halts any further increase in velocity. 

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

#359874

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:18:11 PM, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:

> What If "the objects relativistic mass or time dilation" @ velocity
> of x m/s or acceleration of t m/s/s is in reference to the CMBR or
> space time itself instead of another object?  

Good thing.  It could be.  That depends on how you would have derived it.  <shrug>

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

#359924

The amount of energy deposited back into the CMBR by Drag of the CMBR in relation to the objects velocity through the CMBR from the viscosity of the medium it's traveling through. 

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

#359871

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:54:14 PM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote:
<all non math snipped>

Nothing left!?

Can you repeat all that with the math?

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

#359872

Wow, you missed the whole point of his post by asking for the math. 

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

#359875

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:

>**  The symmetry is established in the Lorentz transform where mutual time dilation becomes possible.  <shrug>
>
>**  The Twin paradox comes about when the twins A and B starts out at rest. Then, B moves away and finally return to reunite with A at rest.  <shrug>
>
>**  After some serious brain storming, the consensus is to manually add a law of physics where the Lorentz transform 
>and thus the mutual time dilation is only valid under inertial frames of reference.  
>On the contrary, Special relativity does not even indicate such a manmade law of nature.  <shrug>
>
>**  A simple resolution can now be hand waved to resolve the paradox by flipping the observed time dilation of the inertial frame.  
>To this day, there remains no sound mathematics to show so.  <shrug>

          Neither the Lorentz transform or mathematics
causes anything, the above nonsense is an exercise
in vagueness, totally lacking in physics.


>
[snip hatred insanity]
>
>**  Koobee Wublee points out that the traveling twin B can be allowed a period where B is moving but with no acceleration.  
>Thus, both twins are in inertial frames, and mutual time dilation must apply with non-null relative speed.  
>Any arbitrary time spent when both twins are in inertial frames with non-null relative speed spells out fatal contradiction to Special Relativity.  <shrug>

         Allowing mathematics to totally depart from
physical reality means total loss of reality.

         "Traveling" means going some place,
moving from one place to another.
         Any effects of doing that arise from how
much distance is covered in "traveling".
         Claiming or thinking A is "traveling" yet
"staying at home" is total nonsense, what is
causing KW to have gone nuts?


>**  So far, any brain storming is fruitless to resolve the paradox.  
>Koobee Wublee urges the relativistic morons to manually create another physical law of nature.  
>That is the Lorentz transform does not apply to any frames that had been non-inertial in the past, 
>and these buffoons can joyfully flip the time dilation equation just like the happy, mystic, good old time.  <shrug>
>
>The following indoctrination is the core in the belief of Special Relativity.  <shrug>

         [snipping and ignoring the insane ranting]

         The problem here is that KW thinks relativity
can mean simply "relative motion" without any
relation to the physical world.

        Flip all you want (you really did, a long time ago),
unless a physical distance can be specified, the math
becomes mental masturbation.

        I have suggested that KW study Divergent Matter,
if nothing else, it would bring him back from the la-la
land of calculation swooning without physics.

        The rant in the quoted message totally ignores
both the high speeds required, and the enormous
distances involved.
        If "distance" and the "time interval" were of
fixed length (never changing in size), there would
be no need for relativity mathematics.

       Regardless if the Divergent Matter model "fits"
the universe we live in or not, using it as a reference
and comparison requires rational physics, something
that appearance suggests KW never learned or knew.

       In the model, the reason for differences in elapsed
time is the distance traveled in equal time periods.
      One of the problems with relativity theory is the
thinking and allowing of mathematics to be relevant
with physical accounting.
      Mathematics is accounting, unless something
physical is accounted, nothing is accomplished,
the mathematics is the accountant of physics,
and physics is the account of mathematics.

      Time must always flow one direction, and
all perfect clocks must tick at the same rate.
      The consideration of time as a dimension
allows Minkowski space-time math to satisfactorily
represent the universe we live in, but only if time
flow is one directional (forward), and non-linear.

     That is one of the advantages of thinking
in terms of the Divergent Matter model, while
bizarre and absurd, it can be used as a crutch
to bring the insane mathematician back to reality.

       Inertial frames and transforms have no specified
definitions without the physical existence of matter.
While the math can be done using arbitrary or 
dimension-less mathematics, physical problems
must have distance, length, and time _defined_.

       And matter   ___N  O  W___   is needed to
do that.

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

#359890

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:46:15 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:

> Neither the Lorentz transform or mathematics causes anything,

Koobee Wublee rarely replies to excrement.  The reason is that the above nonsense is an exercise in vagueness, totally lacking in physics.  <shrug>

Is this the best from Einstein dingleberries?  <shrug>

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

#359999

Koobee Wublee wrote:

> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:46:15 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> 
>> Neither the Lorentz transform or mathematics causes anything,
> 
> Koobee Wublee rarely replies to excrement. 

Not indicated, at all.

> The reason is that the above
> nonsense is an exercise in vagueness, totally lacking in physics. 
> <shrug>
> 
> Is this the best from Einstein dingleberries?  <shrug>

I guess it is. Kefisher is one of the fewest they have back to defend 
relativity with.

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

#359929

Kefisher said
"      Time must always flow one direction, and 
all perfect clocks must tick at the same rate. 
      The consideration of time as a dimension 
allows Minkowski space-time math to satisfactorily 
represent the universe we live in, but only if time 
flow is one directional (forward), and non-linear. "

Yes, time flows forward. For time to travel backwards would require the entire universe to also be pushed backwards with the object. 
Pushing the universe back in time would require near infinite energy. 
This is why the accelerated object would start spawning particle pairs releasing its relativistic mass. 

Just the same as virtual partial creating Hawking radiation at the event horizon of a black hole. 

Just as water molecules evaporating from your skin feels cool, the black hole gains entropy when evaporating virtual particles. 
A Black holes lost spin is the only way to gain entropy
Most likely it is the entire universe losing spin in relation to the black hole. 
The universe is spinning around the black hole. 

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

#359937

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:29:34 -0700 (PDT), fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote:

>Kefisher said
>"      Time must always flow one direction, and 
>all perfect clocks must tick at the same rate. 
>      The consideration of time as a dimension 
>allows Minkowski space-time math to satisfactorily 
>represent the universe we live in, but only if time 
>flow is one directional (forward), and non-linear. "
>
>Yes, time flows forward. For time to travel backwards would require the entire universe to also be pushed backwards with the object. 

       It is more definite and rational than that,   IF
time is non-linear, and experiments strongly 
suggest it is not classical Newtonian in an
Euclidean space, then matter must be doing
something, as time flow is intimately tied to
the attributes of matter.

      And the size or scale of matter can only
be fixed and unchanging,  OR ,  expanding,
matter shrinking is not an option in view of
the relative acceleration between objects
falling and the surface.

      The equal falling of objects is far less
complicated physics if matter is expanding
instead of being a fixed, unchanging size
or scale.


>Pushing the universe back in time would require near infinite energy. 

        All gravitational and cosmological 
processes almost certainly are entropic,
with NO  "obvious" energy accounting.


>This is why the accelerated object would start spawning particle pairs releasing its relativistic mass. 

        That is way over my head.


>Just the same as virtual partial creating Hawking radiation at the event horizon of a black hole. 

          What?     !!!!!!!????????????


>Just as water molecules evaporating from your skin feels cool, the black hole gains entropy when evaporating virtual particles. 

         A pound of water evaporating carries
away about 1000 BTU of heat energy, and
that heat is required to evaporate the water.
        It hardly seems anything like black 
holes to me.


>A Black holes lost spin is the only way to gain entropy
>Most likely it is the entire universe losing spin in relation to the black hole. 
>The universe is spinning around the black hole. 

       I don't care to comment on speculative
hypotheticals.

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

#359891

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 5:54:14 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> **  The symmetry is established in the Lorentz transform where mutual
> time dilation becomes possible.  <shrug>
>
> **  The Twin paradox comes about when the twins A and B starts out at
> rest. Then, B moves away and finally return to reunite with A at rest.
> <shrug>
>
> **  After some serious brain storming, the consensus is to manually
> add a law of physics where the Lorentz transform and thus the mutual
> time dilation is only valid under inertial frames of reference.  On
> the contrary, Special relativity does not even indicate such a
> manmade law of nature.  <shrug>
>
> **  A simple resolution can now be hand waved to resolve the paradox
> by flipping the observed time dilation of the inertial frame.  To this
> day, there remains no sound mathematics to show so.  <shrug>
>
> **  The religion of relativity is born, and Einstein the nitwit, the
> plagiarist, and the liar is worshipped as the god.  <shrug>
>
> **  Koobee Wublee points out that the traveling twin B can be allowed
> a period where B is moving but with no acceleration.  Thus, both
> twins are in inertial frames, and mutual time dilation must apply
> with non-null relative speed.  Any arbitrary time spent when both
> twins are in inertial frames with non-null relative speed spells out
> fatal contradiction to Special Relativity.  <shrug>
>
> **  So far, any brain storming is fruitless to resolve the paradox.
> Koobee Wublee urges the relativistic morons to manually create
> another physical law of nature.  That is the Lorentz transform does
> not apply to any frames that had been non-inertial in the past, and
> these buffoons can joyfully flip the time dilation equation just like
> the happy, mystic, good old time.  <shrug>

Sylvia Else is creating her own law of physics by demanding the twins to be right next to each upon reunification, or else the Lorentz transform does not apply.  Koobee Wublee wonders if other relativistic morons would buy into this new manmade law of physics.  Does Tom Roberts?  <shrug>

After all, Sylvia's manmade law of physics was not anticipated by Koobee Wublee, and that shows how creative the Einstein dingleberries can be.  <shrug>

Please propose more manmade laws of physics.  <shrug>

In the meantime, the gospel of relativity can be summed up below.  <shrug>

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

<shrug>

Question:  Who's your god?

Answer: Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.  <shrug>

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web