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: colp on 21 Jun 2010 13:58 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?
From: eric gisse on 21 Jun 2010 16:06 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.
From: colp on 21 Jun 2010 16:19 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?
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 16:26 On Jun 21, 4:06 pm, 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. Not one or your better arguments in support of Lorentz ether theory, but as good as most. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_Current_Status <<...circularity in the definition of inertia and the inability to justify the privileged position held by inertial worldlines in special relativity were among the problems that led Einstein in the years following 1905 to seek a broader and more coherent context for the laws of physics. In the introduction of his 1916 review paper on general relativity he wrote The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it moves without acceleration.>> << Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory.>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm See also: http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Sue...
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 19:25
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:2eb8f96a-2c46-4076-ab21-741fab56a147(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes .. you are > Do you want me to post proof that you are a liar, or > does sci.physics.relativity know already? I have already admitted that I didn't psot the actual math I thought I had I still have it here .. Iv'e asked you several times if you want me to post it You keep snipping that request, as well as snipping when I answer your question about why YOU neede to provide the math |