The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Math]
|
Prev: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
Next: Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty
From: Koobee Wublee on 17 Jun 2010 01:35 The Einstein Dingleberry behind the handle of Paul Cardinale knows nothing about the Lorentz transform. It is so typical among the self- styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug> Gee! Just how hard can the understanding of the Lorentz transform be anyway? Since the self-styled physicists do not understand the Lorentz transform, is it safe to say the self-styled physicists are in fact idiots?
From: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 01:47 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6e5c2ec1-4c37-41c2-9a94-c4d7a8c90cd7(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 6:19 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> > GPS will function without any GR effect applied if indeed exists. You >> > can google the previous few posts by yours truly to understand how GPS >> > works. <shrug> >> >> That's funny. Are you claiming that the GPS system does NOT compensate >> for >> relativistic effects, and that the builders and designers of the system >> are >> lying about the mathematics they use? > > 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?
From: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 01:56 > When > this is tested by actual experiment, the travelling twin is younger. In the symmetric paradox that I spoke of in my previous post, both twins travel and they are the same age, despite the predictions of SR. I'm not going to argue about the classic paradox because the paradox is much easier to show in the symmetric case. ________________________________ If the situation is that both twins travel, and this is symmetric, then SR predicts that they will have aged the same amount when re-united into the same inertial frame. If you do believe SR predicts anything different, then you are wrong about the predictions of SR. Can you produce a single experiment which shows that SR is wrong? No? Thought not.
From: Koobee Wublee on 17 Jun 2010 02:43 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> GPS really does not need any nonsense of the relativistic effect to make it work. If indeed mystified to make you think it is necessary to do so, whatever any amount within a reasonable expected tolerance applied to the GPS clocks, the GPS will still function just fine according to the mathematics. Trust the engineers. GR effect is a myth. The self-styled physicists have demonstrated themselves to be utterly mystified by their own religion in SR and GR worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. It is like worshipping a cockroach. <shrug and more yawn>
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> |