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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #358376 > unrolled thread

Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Julio Di Egidio" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-07-23 14:49 +0100
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-23 06:54 -0700
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 07:24 -0700
      Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-23 07:31 -0700
        Re: Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-23 10:35 -0700
        Re: Stephane Baune puffs himself up and proves himself  a severely delusional POS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-23 11:12 -0700
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-24 11:44 +1000
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-23 22:00 -0500
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 04:50 -0700
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-25 08:34 -0700
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 09:06 -0700
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 09:04 -0700
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-27 16:40 -0500
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 14:42 -0700
          Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 14:58 -0700
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 16:25 -0700
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 14:08 -0700
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox wobbly <wobbly@dont-email.me> - 2015-07-29 19:26 +0000
          Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 12:47 -0700
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox wobbly <wobbly@dont-email.me> - 2015-07-29 20:08 +0000
              Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:42 -0700
          Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-29 12:59 -0700
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox wobbly <wobbly@dont-email.me> - 2015-07-29 20:10 +0000
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 22:21 -0700
          Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox wobbly <wobbly@dont-email.me> - 2015-08-02 10:53 +0000
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox wobbly <wobbly@dont-email.me> - 2015-08-02 11:00 +0000
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 21:07 -0700
              Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-03 15:11 +0000
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 22:57 -0700
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 22:57 -0700
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:49 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#359043

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:08:14 PM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:26:12 PM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:02:38 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
> >> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >> You can stand confidently alongside other such perverts,
> >> >> >> for example: Lenin, Stalin, Castro, ect.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > MUAHAHAHA! All this for pointing out an incorrect arc length
> >> >> > formula!
> >> >> 
> >> >> Lenin was a good man, extremely intelligent. The unaware just think,
> >> >> heck,
> >> >> Lenin, communist etc. But these individuals are just walking without
> >> >> thinking, that Lenin is even more valid and actual today.
> >> > 
> >> > Lenin was actually a first-rate mass murderer and war criminal who
> >> > destroyed Russia. The legend of "good Lenin whose ideas were
> >> > perverted by Stalin" is just that, a legend. Long story.
> >> 
> >> Is this true? I mean, you should be able to come up with something
> >> empirical, not legends, as you say. Speaking the witch, how many Poles
> >> perished about sixty years ago because of what? I'm just asking.
> >> 
> >> I heard stories that in Russia the electricity, water, heat and public
> >> transportation was free to its citizens. Also, they were the first in
> >> technologies, space exploration, relativity and quantum mechanics. I'm
> >> just asking. Maybe they lied to us.
> > 
> > It's impossible to address this here. Historians are still researching
> > it as the relevant archives became available only after 1989. It's not
> > so much "lies" as wishful thinking perhaps. Until Russia shakes off the
> > nightmare called "Lenin", nothing will change there. Problem is,
> > everything in Russia takes roughly 10x longer than everywhere else. Luis
> > Buñuel, the famous Spanish film director, observed once that if the
> > Bolshevik revolution took place in some South American country, the
> > whole nonsense would be over in just few years.
> 
> I was expecting empirical answers to those question, since you appear so 
> knowledgeable. This because I am born yesterday and don't know what to 
> believe.
> 
> If this is also your way in write scientific papers, be sure I never will 
> read them. It would be a waste of time. Try focusing on what is been said, 
> in stead of whatever not related insinuation and such.
> 
> How can that take 10x longer when they were the first in so many, many 
> domains. Take a look what is happening now, is this because of Lenin too?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVbfTAq0M8U

Let's just say I'm staying out of this topic.

--
Jan

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

#359039

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:26:12 PM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
>
> I heard stories that in Russia the electricity, water, heat and public 
> transportation was free to its citizens.

falase


> Also, they were the first in 
> technologies, space exploration, relativity and quantum mechanics. 

Space exploration, yes. Relativity and quantum mechanics, not so much. 

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

#359041

Dono, wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:26:12 PM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
>>
>> I heard stories that in Russia the electricity, water, heat and public
>> transportation was free to its citizens.
> 
> falase

Not sure, probable in some regions this was free. In any case, I believe 
those things were affordable.

>> Also, they were the first in technologies, space exploration,
>> relativity and quantum mechanics.
> 
> Space exploration, yes. Relativity and quantum mechanics, not so much.

OK.

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

#359384

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:48:00 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > This is very basic, it simply follows from the general formula for arc
> > length which is sqrt(g_ij qdot^i qdot^j) dt when the coordinates ARE
> > standard inertial, i.e. g = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
> 
> Is this the same as 
> 
>     g = [-(cdt)², (dx)², (dy)², (dz)²]

I don't know what you wrote on the right-hand side. It's not correct mathematics,
so if it's some private notation that you use, explain it first.

> Why don't you say so. What is g anyway, arc length? On which circle?

Not on circle (what an idea!). g is the Minkowski metric coefficients given
with respect to some noninertial coordinates (like those of the travelling twin).

--
Jan

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

#359414

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:48:00 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > This is very basic, it simply follows from the general formula for
>> > arc length which is sqrt(g_ij qdot^i qdot^j) dt when the coordinates
>> > ARE standard inertial, i.e. g = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
>> 
>> Is this the same as
>> 
>>     g = [-(cdt)², (dx)², (dy)², (dz)²]
> 
> I don't know what you wrote on the right-hand side. It's not correct
> mathematics,
> so if it's some private notation that you use, explain it first.

Are you serious, not familiar with vector notation of the same?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_notation

>> Why don't you say so. What is g anyway, arc length? On which circle?
> 
> Not on circle (what an idea!). g is the Minkowski metric coefficients
> given with respect to some noninertial coordinates (like those of the
> travelling twin).

I don't understand a word of what you say. That must be a STERADIAN, not 
an arc. I must insist, having an arc without a circle defies all laws of 
Nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_%28geometry%29

Please remark the detailed figure on right side.

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

#359417

wobbly wrote:

> JanPB wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:48:00 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
>>> JanPB wrote:
>>> 
>>> > This is very basic, it simply follows from the general formula for
>>> > arc length which is sqrt(g_ij qdot^i qdot^j) dt when the coordinates
>>> > ARE standard inertial, i.e. g = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
>>> 
>>> Is this the same as
>>> 
>>>     g = [-(cdt)², (dx)², (dy)², (dz)²]
>> 
>> I don't know what you wrote on the right-hand side. It's not correct
>> mathematics,
>> so if it's some private notation that you use, explain it first.
> 
> Are you serious, not familiar with vector notation of the same?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_notation
> 
>>> Why don't you say so. What is g anyway, arc length? On which circle?
>> 
>> Not on circle (what an idea!). g is the Minkowski metric coefficients
>> given with respect to some noninertial coordinates (like those of the
>> travelling twin).
> 
> I don't understand a word of what you say. That must be a STERADIAN, not
> an arc.

I should rather say, a surface delimited by a steradian.

> I must insist, having an arc without a circle defies all laws of
> Nature.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_%28geometry%29
> 
> Please remark the detailed figure on right side.

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

#359481

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:25 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:48:00 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > This is very basic, it simply follows from the general formula for
> >> > arc length which is sqrt(g_ij qdot^i qdot^j) dt when the coordinates
> >> > ARE standard inertial, i.e. g = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
> >> 
> >> Is this the same as
> >> 
> >>     g = [-(cdt)², (dx)², (dy)², (dz)²]
> > 
> > I don't know what you wrote on the right-hand side. It's not correct
> > mathematics,
> > so if it's some private notation that you use, explain it first.
> 
> Are you serious, not familiar with vector notation of the same?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_notation

What you wrote above is not a vector, it's just a (meaningless)
string of symbols connected by commas and enclosed in parentheses.
Do you know, for example, what "dx" really _is_? How about "dx^2"?

> >> Why don't you say so. What is g anyway, arc length? On which circle?
> > 
> > Not on circle (what an idea!). g is the Minkowski metric coefficients
> > given with respect to some noninertial coordinates (like those of the
> > travelling twin).
> 
> I don't understand a word of what you say. That must be a STERADIAN, not 
> an arc.

OK, I'm done talking to you. You have a _massive_ amount of catching up to do,
as I said many times before, I cannot post a manifold theory course here.

--
Jan

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

#359513

JanPB wrote:

> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:25 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:48:00 AM UTC-7, wobbly wrote:
>> >> JanPB wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > This is very basic, it simply follows from the general formula for
>> >> > arc length which is sqrt(g_ij qdot^i qdot^j) dt when the
>> >> > coordinates ARE standard inertial, i.e. g = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 +
>> >> > dy^2 + dz^2
>> >> 
>> >> Is this the same as
>> >> 
>> >>     g = [-(cdt)², (dx)², (dy)², (dz)²]
>> > 
>> > I don't know what you wrote on the right-hand side. It's not correct
>> > mathematics,
>> > so if it's some private notation that you use, explain it first.
>> 
>> Are you serious, not familiar with vector notation of the same?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_notation
> 
> What you wrote above is not a vector, it's just a (meaningless)
> string of symbols connected by commas and enclosed in parentheses.

Hmm, you make me think you must a bachelor only mathematician. LOL, come 
on, I wonder you understand anything in those papers you pretend to review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector

Take a look at the first expression. No wonder Koobee is likely stronger 
than you in tensors.

> Do you know, for example, what "dx" really _is_? How about "dx^2"?

It must be as it says, an arbitrary infinitesimal change along the X 
direction/axis. In Math Modelling and scientific computation that would be 
the projection of the evolution/time step along that axis (resolution).

Don't you really know this stuff?

>> >> Why don't you say so. What is g anyway, arc length? On which circle?
>> > 
>> > Not on circle (what an idea!). g is the Minkowski metric coefficients
>> > given with respect to some noninertial coordinates (like those of the
>> > travelling twin).
>> 
>> I don't understand a word of what you say. That must be a STERADIAN,
>> not an arc.
> 
> OK, I'm done talking to you. You have a _massive_ amount of catching up
> to do, as I said many times before, I cannot post a manifold theory
> course here.

Yeah, who asked you about that manifold theory. Was about s simple 
question involving representation. There must be a reason calling it an 
Arc. Such thing requires a circle, you MUST agree in that.

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

#358667

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 4:27:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 11:03:52 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The following post explains exactly where the self-styled physicists
> > fvcked up on the very simple math of SR time after time.  <shrug>
>
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/7KgNzGFOYNI/uYMyiKiJv1oJ
>
> Stop making random claims and just calculate using this formula in
> some simple case and you'll see it doesn't work.
> 
> For example, consider an observer rotating in the
> (say) xy-plane of the Minkowski space. Suppose he is observing
> an object that's likewise rotating at the same angular velocity.
> So according to him the object is stationary. Using the above
> formula with v = 0, you'll get integral sqrt(1) dt = the t-coordinate
> time which is INCORRECT as the elapsed time of the moving object is
> naturally equal to t-coordinate time _divided by gamma_.
> 
> So you get the wrong answer.
> 
> OTOH if you write the Minkowski metric in the rotating coordinates
> and apply integral sqrt(g_ij qdot^i qdot^j) dt, you'll get the
> correct result.

Jan the relativistic moron has no fvcking idea what it is yapping about, but whatever is still incoherent and wrong!  <shrug>

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

#358668

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 4:32:37 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 3:48:57 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Jan the relativistic moron needs to learn the basics.  Here is one of
> > many blunders of Jan the relativistic moron.  Given the following
> > geometry,
>
> > **  dS^2 = c^2 dt^2 - ds^2
>
> > When Koobee Wublee rewrote the above into the following, Jan the
> > relativistic moron objected:
>
> > **  dS^2 / c^2 = dt^2 (1 - B^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > **  B^2 c^2 = (ds/dt)^2
>
> > According to Jan's "wisdom", since dt and ds are independent to each
> > other, (ds/dt) must be zero.  <shrug>
>
> Obviously if dS^2 = c^2 dt^2 - ds^2 with independent dt and ds
> (the latter is a terrible choice of letter, BTW), then it's
> mathematically impossible to have any relation of the type:
> 
>     dS^2 / c^2 = dt^2 (1 - B^2)
> 
> ...because that would say that a vector space could be both
> 2-dimensional and 1-dimensional.

Is there another Einstein dingleberry that agrees with Jan the relativistic moron?  Tom, PD, Paul Anersens, or professor Carlip?  Koobee Wublee will take lack of response from Einstein dingleberries as disagreeing with Jan the relativistic moron.  It looks like Jan the relativistic moron is on its own.  Why doesn't Jan the relativistic moron name a single textbook that agrees with this imbecile's nonsense?  <shrug>

> [rest of nonsense about the Riemann tensor snipped]

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

#358803

On 7/26/2015 12:57 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 4:32:37 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 3:48:57 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Jan the relativistic moron needs to learn the basics.  Here is one of
>>> many blunders of Jan the relativistic moron.  Given the following
>>> geometry,
>>
>>> **  dS^2 = c^2 dt^2 - ds^2
>>
>>> When Koobee Wublee rewrote the above into the following, Jan the
>>> relativistic moron objected:
>>
>>> **  dS^2 / c^2 = dt^2 (1 - B^2)
>>
>>> Where
>>
>>> **  B^2 c^2 = (ds/dt)^2
>>
>>> According to Jan's "wisdom", since dt and ds are independent to each
>>> other, (ds/dt) must be zero.  <shrug>
>>
>> Obviously if dS^2 = c^2 dt^2 - ds^2 with independent dt and ds
>> (the latter is a terrible choice of letter, BTW), then it's
>> mathematically impossible to have any relation of the type:
>>
>>      dS^2 / c^2 = dt^2 (1 - B^2)
>>
>> ...because that would say that a vector space could be both
>> 2-dimensional and 1-dimensional.
>
> Is there another Einstein dingleberry that agrees with Jan the relativistic moron?
> Tom, PD, Paul Anersens, or professor Carlip?

I'm none of those but I agree with Jan, and he also agrees with what's 
in textbooks.

> Koobee Wublee will take lack of response
> from Einstein dingleberries as disagreeing with Jan the relativistic moron.

Nobody really cares what you're going to take about what, Koobee. Nobody 
is going to leap to your dares and taunts.

> It looks
> like Jan the relativistic moron is on its own.  Why doesn't Jan the relativistic moron
> name a single textbook that agrees with this imbecile's nonsense?  <shrug>
>
>> [rest of nonsense about the Riemann tensor snipped]


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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web