Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 00:40
On Jul 19, 3:35 pm, Cosmik de Bris
<cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> On 19/07/10 14:55 , colp wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 2:00 pm, Cosmik de Bris
> > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz>  wrote:
> >> On 19/07/10 12:01 , colp wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever"<whoe...(a)whereever.com>    wrote:
> >>>> "colp"  wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>> So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong
>
> >>>> I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already.
>
> >>> Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the
> >>> turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right?
>
> >>> The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just lied about
> >>> it instead.
>
> >> Have you ever posted any maths?
>
> > Yes, I have.
>
> 2+2 = 5 doesn't count.

Is that the best you've got?
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 00:54
On Jul 19, 4:21 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 10:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote:
>
> > > "colp"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > >So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong
>
> > > I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already.
>
> >Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the
> >turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right?
>
> I had it here .. ready to post for you . I've asked you over and over
> do you
> want to see it .. and you ignore it.  Do you want me to post it?

Not until you apologise for your lies.

[snip more lies from Inertial]

>
> >Eric Gisse knew the implicatons of the Hafele-Keating experiment, and
> >his response was to deny that it tested SR, even though the paper
> >specifically mentions the clock paradox - a problem which is specific
> >to SR.
>
> >Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense,
>
> LIE .. it doesn't, and he doesn't believe it does

So how do you account for the following conversation?

colp:
Your process of computation involves restricting calculations which
could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference,

Daryl:
Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically and
physically nonsense.

colp:
Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR,
nothing else.
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 01:09
On Jul 19, 2:54 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:21 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 10:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "colp"  wrote in message
>
> > > >news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > >So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong
>
> > > > I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already.
>
> > >Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the
> > >turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right?
>
> > I had it here .. ready to post for you . I've asked you over and over
> > do you
> > want to see it .. and you ignore it.  Do you want me to post it?
>
> Not until you apologise for your lies.

I already apologised for my mistake .. multiple times.

> [snip more lies from Inertial]

Unlike you, I don't lie

> > >Eric Gisse knew the implicatons of the Hafele-Keating experiment, and
> > >his response was to deny that it tested SR, even though the paper
> > >specifically mentions the clock paradox - a problem which is specific
> > >to SR.
>
> > >Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense,
>
> > LIE .. it doesn't, and he doesn't believe it does
>
> So how do you account for the following conversation?

Easily

> colp:
> Your process of computation involves restricting calculations which
> could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference,
>
> Daryl:
> Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically and
> physically nonsense.

If you do not apply the correct transforms between frames of reference
(ie use SR correctly), you end up with contradictions.

If you don't use appropriate transforms to the change frame of
reference, then you have to use a single frame of reference for your
analysis

Otherwise, if you don't do the physics correctly (which is what you
are doing) you get nonsense

> colp:
> Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR,
> nothing else.

Wrong .. it is a direct result of you not being able to do the physics
required.
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 01:10
On Jul 19, 2:40 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 3:35 pm, Cosmik de Bris
>
>
>
>
>
> <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> > On 19/07/10 14:55 , colp wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 19, 2:00 pm, Cosmik de Bris
> > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz>  wrote:
> > >> On 19/07/10 12:01 , colp wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever"<whoe...(a)whereever.com>    wrote:
> > >>>> "colp"  wrote in message
>
> > >>>>news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>>>> So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong
>
> > >>>> I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already.
>
> > >>> Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the
> > >>> turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right?
>
> > >>> The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just lied about
> > >>> it instead.
>
> > >> Have you ever posted any maths?
>
> > > Yes, I have.
>
> > 2+2 = 5 doesn't count.
>
> Is that the best you've got?

Its very appropriate analogy .. the 'math' you posted previously is
just as wrong as 2+2 = 5
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 01:20
On Jul 19, 5:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2:40 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 3:35 pm, Cosmik de Bris
>
> > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> > > On 19/07/10 14:55 , colp wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 19, 2:00 pm, Cosmik de Bris
> > > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz>  wrote:
> > > >> On 19/07/10 12:01 , colp wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever"<whoe...(a)whereever.com>    wrote:
> > > >>>> "colp"  wrote in message
>
> > > >>>>news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >>>>> So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong
>
> > > >>>> I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already..
>
> > > >>> Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the
> > > >>> turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right?
>
> > > >>> The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just lied about
> > > >>> it instead.
>
> > > >> Have you ever posted any maths?
>
> > > > Yes, I have.
>
> > > 2+2 = 5 doesn't count.
>
> > Is that the best you've got?
>
> Its very appropriate analogy .. the 'math' you posted previously is
> just as wrong as 2+2 = 5

How could you know what maths I was referring to, liar?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity