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

Groups > sci.physics > #507455 > unrolled thread

Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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 benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 11:29 -0400
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 11:36 -0500
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 16:33 -0400
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 16:45 -0400
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:17 -0700

#507455 — Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox

On 07/16/2015 10:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 4:05 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>> news:d0otdmFdu7qU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 16/07/2015 12:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I see is a description of an experiment, together with an
>>> assertion as to the result of applying SR.
>>
>> That is correct: the result is obvious, the consequences are not obvious.
>>
>>> What I don't see is any math to support the assertion.
>>>
>>> If you had presented the math, we could point to the errors you've made.
>>
>> This is not a maths forum: anyway, if you knew anything about special
>> relativity, you would not need to ask.
>
> Julio, in order to work out the consequences of any physical theory, you
> have to do the math. This is why math is part and parcel of physics. It
> is simply not possible to competently work out the consequences of
> relativity if you can't do the math of relativity. I think that's the
> caution that Sylvia is putting out to you. If you now say that you don't
> believe that math should be a required skill to work out the outcomes
> and consequences of a theory, then it's quite likely you'll lose the
> interest of your readers.

Julio, Boinker can't understand that math is nothing but fantasy. It 
can't sink into his thick skull that when your assumptions are wrong, 
your math is "wrong" (but "right" as mathematics). He's just snowed.


-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#507471

On 7/16/2015 10:29 AM, benj wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 10:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/16/2015 4:05 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>> news:d0otdmFdu7qU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 16/07/2015 12:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I see is a description of an experiment, together with an
>>>> assertion as to the result of applying SR.
>>>
>>> That is correct: the result is obvious, the consequences are not
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>>> What I don't see is any math to support the assertion.
>>>>
>>>> If you had presented the math, we could point to the errors you've
>>>> made.
>>>
>>> This is not a maths forum: anyway, if you knew anything about special
>>> relativity, you would not need to ask.
>>
>> Julio, in order to work out the consequences of any physical theory, you
>> have to do the math. This is why math is part and parcel of physics. It
>> is simply not possible to competently work out the consequences of
>> relativity if you can't do the math of relativity. I think that's the
>> caution that Sylvia is putting out to you. If you now say that you don't
>> believe that math should be a required skill to work out the outcomes
>> and consequences of a theory, then it's quite likely you'll lose the
>> interest of your readers.
>
> Julio, Boinker can't understand that math is nothing but fantasy. It
> can't sink into his thick skull that when your assumptions are wrong,
> your math is "wrong" (but "right" as mathematics). He's just snowed.

Right. Like Newtonian math F=dp/dt and F_g = GMm/r^2 is fantasy and has 
nothing to do with reality.



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

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

#507525

On 07/16/2015 12:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 10:29 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 07/16/2015 10:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2015 4:05 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>> news:d0otdmFdu7qU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 16/07/2015 12:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I see is a description of an experiment, together with an
>>>>> assertion as to the result of applying SR.
>>>>
>>>> That is correct: the result is obvious, the consequences are not
>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>>>> What I don't see is any math to support the assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had presented the math, we could point to the errors you've
>>>>> made.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a maths forum: anyway, if you knew anything about special
>>>> relativity, you would not need to ask.
>>>
>>> Julio, in order to work out the consequences of any physical theory, you
>>> have to do the math. This is why math is part and parcel of physics. It
>>> is simply not possible to competently work out the consequences of
>>> relativity if you can't do the math of relativity. I think that's the
>>> caution that Sylvia is putting out to you. If you now say that you don't
>>> believe that math should be a required skill to work out the outcomes
>>> and consequences of a theory, then it's quite likely you'll lose the
>>> interest of your readers.
>>
>> Julio, Boinker can't understand that math is nothing but fantasy. It
>> can't sink into his thick skull that when your assumptions are wrong,
>> your math is "wrong" (but "right" as mathematics). He's just snowed.
>
> Right. Like Newtonian math F=dp/dt and F_g = GMm/r^2 is fantasy and has
> nothing to do with reality.

You are correct but so brainwashed like Boinker you don't know you are 
correct! So what exactly is a "dp/dt" anyway? Where do I find one to 
measure? I presume you think Newton's law of gravitation "explains" 
gravity? You need to think a bit more.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#507538

On 07/16/2015 02:03 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 12:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> Julio, Boinker can't understand that math is nothing but fantasy. It
>>> can't sink into his thick skull that when your assumptions are wrong,
>>> your math is "wrong" (but "right" as mathematics). He's just snowed.
>>
>> Right. Like Newtonian math F=dp/dt and F_g = GMm/r^2 is fantasy and has
>> nothing to do with reality.
>
>
> Since BJ says that your stupid math can't prove that ESP is real, he
> feels that it's the MATH that's the problem.
>
> Why should he believe in something stupid like 'math'.
>
>
MAth = Fantasy.

Anything HVAC says = lies.

Hence the equation: Harlow = Math

HVAC needs math to do his Astrology calculations.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#507550

just get the program from j.p.l
(ephemeris

> HVAC needs math to do his Astrology calculations.
> 
> -- 
>          ___           ___           ___            ___
>         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
>        /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
>       /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
>      /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
>     /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
>     \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
>      \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
>       \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
>        \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
>                       \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web