The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Koobee Wublee on 17 Jun 2010 02:48 On Jun 16, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb" < wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, absolutely. This is all in the mathematics of the Lorentz > > transform. As I said, you need to understand the Lorentz transforms > > before coming to these forums to trumpet how ignorant and mystified > > you are. <shrug> > > And do you believe that all of the other predictions of SR are correct? I have pointed out SR is a mathematical mistake of Poincare based on a more robust Aether-centric Larmor's original transform. Thus, SR will not correctly predict ALL experimental results. You will find Larmor's transform which must reference all observations to the very stationary background of the Aether (thus violating the principle of relativity) to be less problematic indeed. <shrug>
From: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 03:08 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d44f848a-f849-4b70-91b9-35c653ea43b1(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 10:47 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I am saying the GPS will function fine with compensating for >> > relativistic effect if it really does exist. >> >> So your position is that the GPS system does take into account >> Relativistic >> effects? > > Sorry, I meant "without" instead of "with". You know it is a late > night thing in my time zone. <shrug and yawn> > So your position is that the GPS system does NOT take into account Relativistic effects?
From: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 03:10 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d460e60d-f87f-4ce3-a805-b2568bbfb87b(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb" < wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Yes, absolutely. This is all in the mathematics of the Lorentz >> > transform. As I said, you need to understand the Lorentz transforms >> > before coming to these forums to trumpet how ignorant and mystified >> > you are. <shrug> >> >> And do you believe that all of the other predictions of SR are correct? > > I have pointed out SR is a mathematical mistake of Poincare based on a > more robust Aether-centric Larmor's original transform. Thus, SR will > not correctly predict ALL experimental results. OK, which experimental results are not correctly predicted by SR ?
From: Sue... on 17 Jun 2010 03:39 On Jun 17, 3:10 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d460e60d-f87f-4ce3-a805-b2568bbfb87b(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 16, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb" < wrote: > >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Yes, absolutely. This is all in the mathematics of the Lorentz > >> > transform. As I said, you need to understand the Lorentz transforms > >> > before coming to these forums to trumpet how ignorant and mystified > >> > you are. <shrug> > > >> And do you believe that all of the other predictions of SR are correct? > > > I have pointed out SR is a mathematical mistake of Poincare based on a > > more robust Aether-centric Larmor's original transform. Thus, SR will > > not correctly predict ALL experimental results. > ------------------- > OK, which experimental results are not correctly predicted by SR ? All the experiments that involve matter are incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments <<...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 Sue...
From: Koobee Wublee on 17 Jun 2010 03:40
On Jun 17, 12:10 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I have pointed out SR is a mathematical mistake of Poincare based on a > > more robust Aether-centric Larmor's original transform. Thus, SR will > > not correctly predict ALL experimental results. > > OK, which experimental results are not correctly predicted by SR ? All. <shrug> A better and more intelligent question is which interpreted experimental results validate SR. The answer is none. <shrug> As an example, Keating's experiment did not falsify Larmor's original transform. It certainly does not validate SR. <shrug> |