Lying for Einstein
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Cackling crones and screeching drones have one thing in common, they gibber einstein's stupid theories in cacophonous unision.
Next: Mathematical Proof that Relativity Might be Wrong !
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 19:26 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:6641124a-0ca0-4727-8b03-210b6558921b(a)a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 22, 8:06 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> colp wrote: >> > On Jun 22, 1:48 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:61dff2bc-2261-4b00-bd44-02bbfc212db6(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 4:00 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> colp says... >> >> >> >> >On Jun 20, 5:57=A0pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin is >> >> >> >> younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet >> >> >> >> explained >> >> >> >> to you why, in SR, it is not absurd. >> >> >> >> >They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is >> >> >> >actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are >> >> >> >both >> >> >> >true. >> >> >> >> SR only makes one prediction: in the symmetric case, the twins >> >> >> are the same age when they reunite. >> >> >> > That smacks of political reasoning: Start with your conclusion (in >> >> > this case that there is no paradox) and make your argument fit the >> >> > facts of the day as necessary. >> >> >> No .. it is the truth .. something with which you are unfamiliar >> >> > What a hypocrite. Do you want me to post proof that you are a liar, or >> > does sci.physics.relativity know already? >> >> Please stop being so overtly stupid. > > Perhaps you can explain why you think so, or are you O.K. with > relativists lying about their claims? I'm not .. the psot I thought I'd made had't come thru I've asked you repeatedly now if you want to see the analysis
From: eric gisse on 21 Jun 2010 19:28 colp wrote: > On Jun 22, 8:06 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> colp wrote: >> > On Jun 22, 1:48 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:61dff2bc-2261-4b00- bd44-02bbfc212db6(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 4:00 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> colp says... >> >> >> >> >On Jun 20, 5:57=A0pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin is >> >> >> >> younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet >> >> >> >> explained to you why, in SR, it is not absurd. >> >> >> >> >They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is >> >> >> >actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are >> >> >> >both true. >> >> >> >> SR only makes one prediction: in the symmetric case, the twins >> >> >> are the same age when they reunite. >> >> >> > That smacks of political reasoning: Start with your conclusion (in >> >> > this case that there is no paradox) and make your argument fit the >> >> > facts of the day as necessary. >> >> >> No .. it is the truth .. something with which you are unfamiliar >> >> > What a hypocrite. Do you want me to post proof that you are a liar, or >> > does sci.physics.relativity know already? >> >> Please stop being so overtly stupid. > > Perhaps you can explain why you think so, or are you O.K. with > relativists lying about their claims? There are no such things as 'relativists'. That's word play created by cranks to separate themselves who they see as actual scientists and what the rest of the world _actually_ consider scientists. Also, there is no 'symmetric twins paradox'. Not if you understand the concept of 'symmetry', at least.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 19:48 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hvosj1$lk5$4(a)news.eternal-september.org... > colp wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 8:06 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> colp wrote: >>> > On Jun 22, 1:48 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >>> >>> >>news:61dff2bc-2261-4b00- > bd44-02bbfc212db6(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >> > On Jun 21, 4:00 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> colp says... >>> >>> >> >> >On Jun 20, 5:57=A0pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin >>> >> >> >> is >>> >> >> >> younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet >>> >> >> >> explained to you why, in SR, it is not absurd. >>> >>> >> >> >They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is >>> >> >> >actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are >>> >> >> >both true. >>> >>> >> >> SR only makes one prediction: in the symmetric case, the twins >>> >> >> are the same age when they reunite. >>> >>> >> > That smacks of political reasoning: Start with your conclusion (in >>> >> > this case that there is no paradox) and make your argument fit the >>> >> > facts of the day as necessary. >>> >>> >> No .. it is the truth .. something with which you are unfamiliar >>> >>> > What a hypocrite. Do you want me to post proof that you are a liar, or >>> > does sci.physics.relativity know already? >>> >>> Please stop being so overtly stupid. >> >> Perhaps you can explain why you think so, or are you O.K. with >> relativists lying about their claims? > > There are no such things as 'relativists'. That's word play created by > cranks to separate themselves who they see as actual scientists and what > the > rest of the world _actually_ consider scientists. > > Also, there is no 'symmetric twins paradox'. Not if you understand the > concept of 'symmetry', at least. Also note that I have apologised for thinking I had posted some math that I hadn't .. Was sure I'd sent it. Or maybe I did .. not all my posts end up visible on my ISP server. Perhaps its a post that didn't have as much math as he expected .. because come to think of it, he made some comment about me doing the analysis in one particular frame. I certainly showed how his analysis was wrong .. he has done nothing to correct it. Hmmm ... Who knows .. with someone who's already shown themselves to be dishonest like colp, its hard to know. He's already asked my a question .. then I've replied saying with an answer.. then he replies with my answer removed saying that I didn't. Maybe I'm too quick to think it was actually my fault. Its more likely that someone who is lying about what SR says will lie about what others say.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 20:05 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4c1ffa43$0$14125$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:hvosj1$lk5$4(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> colp wrote: >> >>> On Jun 22, 8:06 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> colp wrote: >>>> > On Jun 22, 1:48 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>>> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >>news:61dff2bc-2261-4b00- >> bd44-02bbfc212db6(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >> > On Jun 21, 4:00 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> colp says... >>>> >>>> >> >> >On Jun 20, 5:57=A0pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin >>>> >> >> >> is >>>> >> >> >> younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet >>>> >> >> >> explained to you why, in SR, it is not absurd. >>>> >>>> >> >> >They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is >>>> >> >> >actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are >>>> >> >> >both true. >>>> >>>> >> >> SR only makes one prediction: in the symmetric case, the twins >>>> >> >> are the same age when they reunite. >>>> >>>> >> > That smacks of political reasoning: Start with your conclusion (in >>>> >> > this case that there is no paradox) and make your argument fit the >>>> >> > facts of the day as necessary. >>>> >>>> >> No .. it is the truth .. something with which you are unfamiliar >>>> >>>> > What a hypocrite. Do you want me to post proof that you are a liar, >>>> > or >>>> > does sci.physics.relativity know already? >>>> >>>> Please stop being so overtly stupid. >>> >>> Perhaps you can explain why you think so, or are you O.K. with >>> relativists lying about their claims? >> >> There are no such things as 'relativists'. That's word play created by >> cranks to separate themselves who they see as actual scientists and what >> the >> rest of the world _actually_ consider scientists. >> >> Also, there is no 'symmetric twins paradox'. Not if you understand the >> concept of 'symmetry', at least. > > Also note that I have apologised for thinking I had posted some math that > I hadn't .. Was sure I'd sent it. Or maybe I did .. not all my posts > end up visible on my ISP server. > > Perhaps its a post that didn't have as much math as he expected .. because > come to think of it, he made some comment about me doing the analysis in > one particular frame. > > I certainly showed how his analysis was wrong .. he has done nothing to > correct it. > > Hmmm ... Who knows .. with someone who's already shown themselves to be > dishonest like colp, its hard to know. He's already asked my a question > .. then I've replied saying with an answer.. then he replies with my > answer removed saying that I didn't. Maybe I'm too quick to think it was > actually my fault. Its more likely that someone who is lying about what > SR says will lie about what others say. Just checked .. in that post where I pointed out the errors in his application of the SR math, I also showed how that should be correctly applied (using a single frame of reference and not frame jumping), and showed a diagram of how the times and turnaround points appear from the frame of reference of one of the twins in the frame before the turnaround works. There wasn't need for much additional math other that of time dilation that was already in the post I replied to. I've got a doc waiting here to post that has some more detail in it .. I've asked colp repeatedly if he wants ot see it .. he ignores that and instead just keeps whining saying "why should I have to proof my claim"., and then snipping when I tell him why the burden of proof is on him when he makes claims against an established theory that has been mathematically proven self-consistent.
From: Uncle Ben on 23 Jun 2010 10:48
On Jun 21, 7:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > (snip) Folks, it is not dishonest to snip stuff from a reply. In fact, it is good nettiquet. The original has already been posted for everyone to see, and to repost it in a reply is a waste of bandwidth. When one comments on part of a post, keep just that part of the post and snip the part you are not replying to. Androcles was the first to complain about snipping, as I remember it. He is not a model to copy. Uncle Ben |