Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Physics]
|
Prev: l'ns t'grs n brs was Re: Furry Zul problems was Re: Furry was Re:Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS was Re: Baby Gazoo
Next: Pentcho Valev INVOLUNTARILY MOVES BOWELS
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 13:17 On Jul 2, 1:33 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:16 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > > > [quote] > > > Einstein, Born, and Moller invoked gravitational time dilation to > > explain aging based on the effect of acceleration. > > > [unquote] > > Wikipedia is messed up: at best it can (even it is only *allowed* to) > accurately reproduce the confusions and errors of the existing > literature. Although no information is deemed reliable in some degree, you are the one who is messed up here. It is a common knowledge that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had proposed GR to resolve the twins paradox. You can also do a google search on that. <shrug> There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 13:23 On Jul 2, 5:23 am, Esa Riihonen wrote: > Androcles kirjoitti: > > Go ahead, the most of the cranks, quit babbling and start using > > mathematics. > > Why should I? I was not doing physics here - and natural language seems > to be much superior for this kind of meta discussion. > > And regarding the specific problems Colp is having with the "symmetric > twin paradox", the mathematical walk through has already been given by > someone (McCullogh, PD - don't remember) in a much clearer form than I > believe I can do myself. As far as I have seen Colp didn't respond to > that at all. So, you dont know what math is involved with the problem. You dont know what the issues are with relative simultaneity. You dont know anything about the Lorentz transform. You are easily bedazzled by the mathemagic shows where all these mathemagic shows contradict each other. That is a fine trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug>
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 13:36 On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is > drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even > unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own > resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked > up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug> Why do you think they all contradict each other? There is a simple machine that is taught in 9th grade science called the Atwood machine. You can look that up. In freshman physics classes, one learns that you can find the final velocity of the hanging masses by using: * Newton's 2nd law * Conservation of momentum, including external impulse * Conservation of energy Later, one finds that you can do the same thing using * Lagrangian mechanics * Hamiltonian mechanics Now, let's see. I suppose you will now say that classical Newtonian physics cannot agree on one way to solve this problem, and that all the ways available to skin the cat all contradict each other. KW, you are an idiot.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 14:15 On Jul 2, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is > > drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the > > plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even > > unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own > > resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked > > up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug> > > Why do you think they all contradict each other? > There is a simple machine that is taught in 9th grade science called > the Atwood machine. You can look that up. > In freshman physics classes, one learns that you can find the final > velocity of the hanging masses by using: > * Newton's 2nd law > * Conservation of momentum, including external impulse > * Conservation of energy > Later, one finds that you can do the same thing using > * Lagrangian mechanics > * Hamiltonian mechanics To go from Los Angeles to Chicago, I can choose to: ** Walk ** Drive a car ** Fly an airplane ** Ride a train <shrug> > Now, let's see. I suppose you will now say that classical Newtonian > physics cannot agree on one way to solve this problem, and that all > the ways available to skin the cat all contradict each other. In the meantime, we are talking about the twins paradox. The mechanics of the following two proposed resolutions are drastically different and contradict each other: ** Lagevins mathemagic of using Larmors transform instead of the Lorentz transform ** GR as suggested by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar <shrug> > KW, you are an idiot. <shrug> PD, after losing your proud professorship, please dont take it out on anyone. <shrug>
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 14:29
On Jul 2, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is > > > drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the > > > plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even > > > unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own > > > resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked > > > up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug> > > > Why do you think they all contradict each other? > > There is a simple machine that is taught in 9th grade science called > > the Atwood machine. You can look that up. > > In freshman physics classes, one learns that you can find the final > > velocity of the hanging masses by using: > > * Newton's 2nd law > > * Conservation of momentum, including external impulse > > * Conservation of energy > > Later, one finds that you can do the same thing using > > * Lagrangian mechanics > > * Hamiltonian mechanics > > To go from Los Angeles to Chicago, I can choose to: > > ** Walk > ** Drive a car > ** Fly an airplane > ** Ride a train > > <shrug> > > > Now, let's see. I suppose you will now say that classical Newtonian > > physics cannot agree on one way to solve this problem, and that all > > the ways available to skin the cat all contradict each other. > > In the meantime, we are talking about the twins paradox. The > mechanics of the following two proposed resolutions are drastically > different and contradict each other: No, they don't. Nor do the drastically different mechanical explanations of the Atwood machine contradict each other. They are just different perspectives or ways of analyzing the very same phenomenon. I do, however, accept that you do not at all see the connection between any two explanations of what's going on in the twin puzzle. This is probably because you do not understand any one of the explanations of what's going on in the twin puzzle, which is perhaps why you call each and every one of them "mysterious" and "mathemagic". > > ** Lagevins mathemagic of using Larmors transform instead of the > Lorentz transform > > ** GR as suggested by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > liar > > <shrug> > > > KW, you are an idiot. > > <shrug> > > PD, after losing your proud professorship, please dont take it out on > anyone. <shrug>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |