 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2007How to defeat the roundtrip paradox.
Yes you got that right roundtrips is what maks SR go round. To defeat the con of Einstein you will have to let the light travel symetric without having a roundtrip, just symmetrical distances. + or - distances doesn't matter, Einsteins theory of relativity and the Lorentz transforms is only valid for roundtrips. Yeah you go count on that 1,5 half symmetrical trip f.ckers, and watch carefully where your simultaneous events in space goes f.ckers. Bye JT On Mar 15, 1:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: [...] Your inability to understand is not a paradox. Go away and leave physics to those who are capable. > On Mar 15, 1:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > [...] > > Your inability to understand is not a paradox. Go away and leave > physics to those who are capable. f.ck of half brained moron JT On 15 Mar, 22:43, j...@tele2.se wrote: > Yes you got that right roundtrips is what maks SR go round. To defeat > the con of Einstein you will have to let the light travel symetric [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bye JT When will the first stupid f.cker show up conclude we can not expect the fibre sending a signal from same place in space in both directions? No of course the light from the verical standing fibre in the middle of ship will not send out the light spherical... starting at one moment in the inertial space surrounding the ship. Yeah i know the 'ONE' fibre occupy two dimensions of reality according to the Lorentz transform muahahahahahahahha f.ck you are slow thinkers. JT On Mar 15, 1:59 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > On 15 Mar, 22:43, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > f.ck you are slow thinkers. Then you should be able to tell us about your education and put us all in our place. > JT > On Mar 15, 1:59 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Then you should be able to tell us about your education and put us all > in our place. Wouldn't it be better to show you i solved some imaginary classic hard problem. Nah muhahaha, i do not tell secrets for morons. JT > > JT- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - On 16 Mar, 00:02, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 1:59 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Then you should be able to tell us about your education and put us all > in our place. > Nah muhahaha, i do not tell secrets for morons. Actually, every post confirms you for what it is now obvious you are - some kind of adolescent ninny. Grow up - learn about relativity and try to post intelligently. Bill > > JT- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > kind of adolescent ninny. Grow up - learn about relativity and try to post > intelligently. Since he was posting about relativity 8 years ago, there is apparently a severe lag between his physical and mental age. > Bill > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > - Visa citerad text - > > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Change dipers fagot... > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Change dipers fagot... On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > Yes you got that right roundtrips is what maks SR go round. To defeat > the con of Einstein you will have to let the light travel symetric [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bye JT There isn't any paradox in the Twin Puzzle. It is a *teaching* exercise. Those who see a paradox in the Twin Puzzle haven't learned enough about special relativity, and that's the point of having the puzzle to work out in the first place. There is a way to cut an 8x8 piece of paper into four pieces and reassemble those four pieces so that you put together a rectangle that is 5x13. For some folks, seeing something that once had an area of 64 become something with an area of 65 is an unresolvable paradox, proof positive that simple geometry is filled with basic flaws. Of course, those folks are fools, and are simply stymied by a little puzzle that they can't figure out. PD > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > PD This is not about the twinparadox fool, this is about the invariance of light, how old are you. JT On Mar 16, 5:57 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > This is not about the twinparadox fool, this is about the invariance > of light, Which is an experimentally confirmed fact, not just a mental example by Einstein. Do you have a problem with experimentally confirmed facts? > how old are you. Why? Did you want to ask your parents if you can come outside and play? > On Mar 16, 5:57 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > by Einstein. Do you have a problem with experimentally confirmed > facts? You are a sad and pathetic and i am pretty sure you are aware of it, only your roundtrip will make the light travel invariant. Well if they are based upon faulthy setups and ideas and do not correctly measure the one way speed of light they are hardly facts. > > how old are you. > > Why? Did you want to ask your parents if you can come outside and > play?- Dölj citerad text - Nope i just not want to be to mean to kids living for Star Trek on the rooms plotting singularities and dreaming about travelling a wormhole. They are rightly entitled to have a dream, but delusional theoretical physicians with a brain developed for a 12 year old boy i just feel despise for, and can harass all day. JT > - Visa citerad text - On Mar 16, 3:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: [...] How old are you? > On Mar 16, 3:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > [...] > > How old are you? Old enough to show i am smarter than anyone here. JT On Mar 16, 8:05 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > On Mar 16, 3:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Old enough to show i am smarter than anyone here. And just a second ago you were condemning delusions.... PD > On Mar 16, 8:05 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > PD It is no delusion what is your IQ JT On Mar 16, 8:17 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > On Mar 16, 8:05 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It is no delusion what is your IQ Which IQ? There are several, you know. And when was your measured last? When you were young? And do please distinguish "intelligence" from "expertise", as an extremely intelligent (by some measure) harpist may not have any idea what she's talking about regarding international finance or chemistry or chess. It's not only presumptuous to suppose that one IQ measure performed years ago would be any indication of your ability to critique anything well out of your area of expertise, it is also ... well ... stupid. PD > On Mar 16, 8:17 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > years ago would be any indication of your ability to critique anything > well out of your area of expertise, it is also ... well ... stupid. Yea - IQ is a rather interesting thing. Before mentioning my experience I would like to say IMHO it is basically useless - Feynman had an IQ of only 128 yet few would doubt his genius categorisation. Mine was measured at primary school at 80 or something like that - cretin level I believe. It meant I was put into 8Z at high school and when I wanted to do advanced math at grade 9 and 10 my math teacher had to go into bat for me showing I got 100% in my math tests - in fact I topped all of grade 8. Evidently it was touch and go but I was allowed to do it. Then in grade 9, due to extreme laziness on my part, I was doing great at science and math but just passing English. Some school guidance officer wanted to send me to 'opportunity school'. My science and math teachers were flabbergasted and found out it came about when the school guidance officer dredged up my old IQ test on the urging of my English teacher who felt the disparity between my science and math marks and English was a concern. First thing my parents did is send me for a visit to my doctor who at that time had just completed or was about to complete his studies to be a psychiatrist. Although he could have tested me he thought it best a go to a child psychiatrist who basically laughed his head off. He said different people have different abilities and different types of IQ tests emphasise different things. He could see I was an abstract mathematical type thinker and gave me an IQ test biased towards that - I got 151. The latest one I did returned 136. Bottom line is I suppose IQ tests have their uses - but also can be abused. Thanks Bill > PD > > On Mar 16, 8:17 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > would like to say IMHO it is basically useless - Feynman had an IQ of only > 128 yet few would doubt his genius categorisation. Or rather, ONE of the IQ measurements performed of Feynman performed at one time was 128. At one point, a particular IQ measurement for me returned 143. Your point is thus made again. PD > Mine was measured at > primary school at 80 or something like that - cretin level I believe. It [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanks > Bill >> On Mar 16, 8:17 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >abstract mathematical type thinker and gave me an IQ test biased towards >that - I got 151. The latest one I did returned 136. Even the occasional chimp will come up with an IQ of 151 in a multiple choice test, Hobba. >Bottom line is I suppose IQ tests have their uses - but also can be abused. I reckon 80 is closer to the mark in your case Hobba...and that's pretty high for a relativist... >Thanks >Bill "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:40:59 GMT <5acrv29rgcvlafh62nsh8ihb2p9vbt5vld@4ax.com>: [snippage] >>Bottom line is I suppose IQ tests have their uses - but also can be abused. > > I reckon 80 is closer to the mark in your case Hobba...and that's pretty high > for a relativist... Ha ha. Oh that's funny. Ho ho ha. Ha ha ho. I can't stop laughing. Hee hee ha. Snork. </sarcasm> In any event, how does one defeat the round trip paradox when all ticks are accounted for? Event 1: (0,0)_O = (0,0)_A Event 2: (L,L/v)_O = (0,L/(vg))_A (shift) Event 3: (0,2L/v)_O = (0,2L/(vg))_A' Outgoing ticks seen from O by A: L/(vg) * sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) = (L/v) * (1 - v/c) Incoming ticks seen from O by A: L/(vg) * sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) = (L/v) * (1 + v/c) Total ticks seen from O by A: 2L/v Time until A reaches endpoint as O sees it: L/(vg) * sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) = (L/v) * (1 + v/c) Time it takes A to return from endpoint as O sees it: L/(vg) * sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) = (L/v) * (1 - v/c) Total time elapsed for O: 2L/v Total time elapsed for A: 2L/(vg) I for one don't see a problem here. [.sigsnip]  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net People think that libraries are safe. They're wrong. They have ideas. (Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >In any event, how does one defeat the round trip paradox when all ticks >are accounted for? There is NO paradox. Time is absolute. Clocks are not speed dependent. Both twins age at the same rate that they would do if they stayed at home. "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:27:32 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Time is absolute. Clocks are not speed dependent. Poor, Poor Ralph. Utterly ignorant of _observed_ relativistic effects on timekeeping devices. > Both twins age at the same rate that they would do if they stayed at home. Only in classical mechanics, Ralph. Special relativity is under discussion - try reading for comprehension for a change. > "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know > him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." > --Jonathan Swift. In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote on 20 Mar 2007 23:08:00 -0700 <1174457280.763538.148970@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: >> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:27:32 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Poor, Poor Ralph. Utterly ignorant of _observed_ relativistic effects > on timekeeping devices. In any event one must have "speed-dependent clocks" if one wants to have a constant speed of light regardless of observer motion. Of course Ralph/Henri doesn't quite do it that way anyway, but the c'=c+v hypothesis has already been directly tested, at the particle level -- and it failed. Other experiments show c' = c fairly conclusively. >> Both twins age at the same rate that they would do if they stayed at home. > > Only in classical mechanics, Ralph. Special relativity is under > discussion - try reading for comprehension for a change. A variant of the twin paradox has also been tested, using muons playing "wander at high speed about a ring". The results were also very conclusive; time dilation occurs. It would be very strange to hypothesize SR at the atomic level but nBaT at the astronomical level. >> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know >> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." >> --Jonathan Swift. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. Because it's there and it works. Windows. It's there, but does it work? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >[snip] Eric Gisse is an idiot. On Mar 21, 6:06 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >[snip] > > Eric Gisse is an idiot. Did your knee hit you in the chin when it jerked up like that? PD > On Mar 21, 6:06 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > Eric Gisse is an idiot. > Did your knee hit you in the chin when it jerked up like that? hello mr Draper Nice imaginary choreography, no it didn't hit my chin. This brings us to the obvious question: Why do you ask? Are you going against the established consensus that Eric is an idiot? Or do you want to sign up for the club? I realize thats a lot of questions but you can number them in your reply. Don't forget: "How to defeat the round trip paradox." was question NR 1 good luck sir! On Mar 22, 10:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 6:06 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nice imaginary choreography, no it didn't hit my chin. Lucky the knee missed when it jerked up, then. > This brings us > to the obvious question: Why do you ask? Are you going against the > established consensus that Eric is an idiot? Or do you want to sign up > for the club? I'm just curious how you established the consensus that Eric is an idiot. What's your sample pool? Does it consist of more than yourself? Does it consist of anyone that isn't on a public crank list? PD > I realize thats a lot of questions but you can number them in your > reply. Don't forget: "How to defeat the round trip paradox." was > question NR 1 > > good luck sir! > On Mar 22, 10:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I'm just curious how you established the consensus that Eric is an > idiot. I learn from Eric that a consensus is something you enforce upon the reader. You didn't reject the theory. That would have been the decent thing to do. Thus-apparently you have enough doubt of Eric's sanity to answer your own question. > What's your sample pool? Does it consist of more than yourself? Being an idiot is just a point of view. For example Eric would probably disagree with our new found consensus. Don't forget: "How to defeat the round trip paradox." was question NR 1 The answer is: You reduce them to apologists. Then they whine about how quote: "It has no effect on my posting" Hilarious. hahahahahaha On Mar 22, 2:47 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 10:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I learn from Eric that a consensus is something you enforce upon the > reader. Ah. Then it appears you learn in a funny way, doesn't it? Have you considered learning from some source other than the internet? For example, I'm sure there's a dictionary containing "consensus" somewhere on the ward. > You didn't reject the theory. That would have been the decent thing > to do. Not at all. The decent thing to do with a claim is to ask the proposer about the basis and the evidence for their claim. Only an idiot would sanction shooting down a claim without asking about the supporting evidence. I'm withholding judgment on your claim until I know more, and that's why I ask. This does not constitute agreement or disagreement. > Thus-apparently you have enough doubt of Eric's sanity to > answer your own question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Being an idiot is just a point of view. For example Eric would > probably disagree with our new found consensus. Once again, who is "our"? > Don't forget: "How to defeat the round trip paradox." was question NR > 1 > > The answer is: You reduce them to apologists. I don't know why one would find the need to defeat the round trip paradox. Do you? > Then they whine about how quote: "It has no effect on my posting" > > Hilarious. > > hahahahahaha I'm glad you find that funny. Do you find meatloaf hilarious too? PD >> On Mar 22, 10:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >hahahahahaha Don't bother with this pair of pathetically religious would-be scientists's whose total intelligent contribution to this newsgroup is nil. They cannot beat us so they just try to waste our time. "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. > >> On Mar 22, 10:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > They cannot beat us so they just try to waste our time. Interestingly, Henri, no one is trying to "beat" you. It's not a contest, and if it were, you would not be equipped for it. If you think it is a contest, I wonder what you imagine the prize is. As for wasting your time, no one has asked you to post your musings and idle reckonings on a newsgroup. When you do, people are inclined to ask you questions about it, especially when it appears to make little sense. It's usually at this point that you say you don't have the time to answer questions, because you are too busy revolutionizing physics by posting your musings and idle reckonings on a newsgroup. PD > "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know > him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." > --Jonathan Swift. >> >> On Mar 22, 10:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >the time to answer questions, because you are too busy revolutionizing >physics by posting your musings and idle reckonings on a newsgroup. If you would talk science Draper I would argue with you ...but you don't because you don't know any... >PD > >> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know >> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." >> --Jonathan Swift. "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. [...] > If you would talk science Draper I would argue with you ...but you don't > because you don't know any... [snip idiotic sig] So if Paul's set of knowledge and Ralph's set of knowledge have the empty set as their intersection, it *must* be because Paul doesn't know anything. It isn't as if Paul has a doctorate in physics or anything. No, clearly the guy who lies about his name and forged his diplomas is the more educated one. > >> >> On Mar 22, 10:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > If you would talk science Draper I would argue with you ...but you don't > because you don't know any... Interestingly, that is completely irrelevant to my response to your earlier comment. As usual, when you say something stupid, and someone challenges your stupid comment, you respond by issuing another stupid comment in a different direction. Does saying, "OK, I was wrong," *ever* occur to you in the course of a conversation? Or is that just a Bad Thing? PD > >PD > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." > --Jonathan Swift. >> If you would talk science Draper I would argue with you ...but you don't >> because you don't know any... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Does saying, "OK, I was wrong," *ever* occur to you in the course of a >conversation? Or is that just a Bad Thing? Whenever I have been wrong I have admitted to the fact. >PD "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. > Whenever I have been wrong I have admitted to the fact. HAHAHAHAHA! One of Phuckwit Duck's many short trips to Wrong: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143847550.981312.171150@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... | "If the behavior of nature isn't what it should be, according to our | natural understanding of things, then something must be working [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | PD Draper: I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD On Mar 26, 5:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote: > > Whenever I have been wrong I have admitted to the fact. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > | > | PD And you'll gather, from re-reading the post from which you clipped this, that (as indicated by the quotes) the above was a parody of someone else. I wonder who that someone else was... PD > Draper: > I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > appear] > PD > On Mar 26, 5:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> | >> | PD > Whenever I have been wrong I have admitted to the fact. Did you snip something, hypocritical lying arsehole? On Mar 26, 11:18 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 5:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Did you snip something, hypocritical lying arsehole? Why no, I don't believe I did in my response to you. Did you? Ah, that would be hypocritical and lying of you, wouldn't it? Didn't I ask you not to remove me from your killfile? PD > >> If you would talk science Draper I would argue with you ...but you don't > >> because you don't know any... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Whenever I have been wrong I have admitted to the fact. I think a recount is in order... PD On Mar 22, 7:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 6:06 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > established consensus that Eric is an idiot? Or do you want to sign up > for the club? No this brings us to the even more obvious question: Given that your spewing has no effect on my posting, and that you do not post here anymore except to insult me, why is it you feel you are accomplishing by sticking around this newsgroup? > I realize thats a lot of questions but you can number them in your > reply. Don't forget: "How to defeat the round trip paradox." was > question NR 1 > > good luck sir! On Mar 16, 5:05 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > On 16 Mar, 13:59, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > JT Yet you are the one acting like a spoiled child who was told "no". >> On Mar 16, 3:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Old enough to show i am smarter than anyone here. My my - how very humble of you - of course you must be smatter than guys who have PhD's, written thesis, and have had them subjected to the scrutiny of others. They passed that scrutiny - your posts don't. So what is you reaction - you are all wrong and I am smarter than all of you. Sorry but yor attitude has neurosis written all over it. You are the prime example of what Dirk says on his home page: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html 'Sucking Logic, Sucking Algebra, Sucking Attitude, Sucking Thumbs, the deadly combination of IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE, topped with a coulis of SELF-RESPECT as from now known under the name ARROGNORANCE ' Bill > JT >>> On Mar 16, 3:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bill I haven't noticed many without a college degree in the law profession, in judgeships, in Congress, the Presidency, or at the mid and highest levels of government, universities, schools, the medical profession, and so on the like. And it makes no difference at all. Stupidity is massively on the increase in the whole of them. Which of course would be the case, as inexorably inevitable as 'entropy' within the acutely confining containment manifold of any Great Wall, Iron Curtain, or other [concentration camp] developing "herd theory of all life" worldview. GLB Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > >>> On Mar 16, 3:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > GLB On Mar 16, 6:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > On Mar 16, 5:57 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > You are a sad and pathetic and i am pretty sure you are aware of it, > only your roundtrip will make the light travel invariant. I take it that you are unaware of one-way isotropy experimental tests. > Well if they are based upon faulthy setups and ideas and do not > correctly measure the one way speed of light they are hardly facts. How good of you to decide on the validity of an experimental result BEFORE even reading about it. Highly scientific. In contrast, when a scientist runs into an experimental result in direct conflict with his expectations, he questions his expectations. Think about the difference. If you don't understand why scientists operate the way they do, at a basic level, then ponder why you spend time posting to science groups. > > > how old are you. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nope i just not want to be to mean to kids living for Star Trek on the > rooms plotting singularities and dreaming about travelling a wormhole. Then you don't have to worry. You're talking with a grown-up. > They are rightly entitled to have a dream, but delusional theoretical > physicians with a brain developed for a 12 year old boy i just feel > despise for, and can harass all day. Except that it isn't theoretical. It is experimentally demonstrated, and therefore it isn't delusional, either. Unless, of course, you choose to not believe measurements when they conflict with your expectations. That IS delusional, almost by definition. PD > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > those folks are fools, and are simply stymied by a little puzzle that > they can't figure out. You snagged your first fool (me). :) A more legit paradox is that a sphere can be cut into 5 pieces and reassembled to form 2 spheres each identical to the original. > PD > > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You snagged your first fool (me). :) :>) I'm sure you've seen it: http://home.att.net/~ebaines/_derived/areas.htm_txt_square.gif > A more legit paradox is that a sphere can be cut into 5 pieces and > reassembled to form 2 spheres each identical to the original. Yes, indeed, a lovely topological training exercise. I have a feeling that JT needs an exercise at the 8th grade geometry level, not one at the college topology level. PD >>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > :>) > I'm sure you've seen it: http://home.att.net/~ebaines/_derived/areas.htm_txt_square.gif I don't recall having seen it before Googling it up yesterday. It's a cute puzzle, PD, but I think it falls a liitle short of supporting your point. I'm sure you know why. >>A more legit paradox is that a sphere can be cut into 5 pieces and >>reassembled to form 2 spheres each identical to the original. > > Yes, indeed, a lovely topological training exercise. I have a feeling > that JT needs an exercise at the 8th grade geometry level, not one at > the college topology level. 2nd grade level seems more appropriate for that one. > PD > >>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > cute puzzle, PD, but I think it falls a liitle short of supporting your > point. I'm sure you know why. It doesn't support the point for YOU, but it does for HIM. My point (poorly made) is that there are some, when faced with a puzzle they cannot figure out, assume that there is a fundamental flaw in the underlying theory/field. PD > >>A more legit paradox is that a sphere can be cut into 5 pieces and > >>reassembled to form 2 spheres each identical to the original. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 2nd grade level seems more appropriate for that one. >>>>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > cannot figure out, assume that there is a fundamental flaw in the > underlying theory/field. I just meant that the particular example you chose /was/ an unresolvable paradox. > PD > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>2nd grade level seems more appropriate for that one. > >>>>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > I just meant that the particular example you chose /was/ an unresolvable > paradox. Ah, no it's not. It does, however, reveal certain assumptions on the part of the viewer, much like the Twin Puzzle reveals certain assumptions on the part of the novice to SR. Hint: Find the slopes of the triangles and of the quadrilateral pieces. > > PD > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > >>2nd grade level seems more appropriate for that one. >>>>>>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Hint: Find the slopes of the triangles and of the quadrilateral > pieces. Yes, PD, I know there's a hole there - that's the point - the pieces /can't/ be put together to form a 5x13 rectangle - they're put together /inside/ a 5x13 rectangle - a feat that nobody (other than perhaps JT) is going to consider paradoxical. >>>PD >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>>>2nd grade level seems more appropriate for that one. > >>>>>>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > /inside/ a 5x13 rectangle - a feat that nobody (other than perhaps JT) > is going to consider paradoxical. My bad. I didn't understand what you were trying to say. > >>>PD > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > My bad. I didn't understand what you were trying to say. No problem. >>>>>PD >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>- Show quoted text - you just jump on push the on swich go and have a week on tau ceti 3 (lovely bathing there, watch out for the killer worms, come back and meet you brother who went fishing at brighton instead and you can still go to lunch with mum on sunday afternoon she won't even notice you've been. I like chopped pineaplle and custard meself >>>>>>>>>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >>> >>>- Show quoted text - > > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > A more legit paradox is that a sphere can be cut into 5 pieces and > reassembled to form 2 spheres each identical to the original. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_paradox It amuses me to no end to see it explained that while it takes 5 pieces, it is impossible to cut a sphere up into those 5 pieces. I found the link to the Axiom of Choice to be quite interesting, despite how much I hated my proofs class and any usage of formal proofs in mathematics. That class _definitely_ excluded pure mathematics from the list of Things I Want To Be When I Finally Grow Up. > > PD >> > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > mathematics from the list of Things I Want To Be When I Finally Grow > Up. But now you are aware that sometimes, if you don't show the appropriate care, you can run into trouble, just as the guys that made analysis rigorous, guys like Wiestrass, were doing it in response to real problems, such as + 1 - 1 + 1 ..... = 0 in Fourier series. That is the main reason for doing what is colloquially called your 'epsilonics' ie a 'rigorous' treatment of calculus. You should see the good natured fun my statistical modelling teacher makes of pure mathematicians. I particularly enjoyed last Monday's lecture when, after having a go at pure mathematicians, he refereed to a result of Hardy - the purest of pure mathematicians - who was quite unhappy that he contributed to applied mathematics with his Hardy-Weinberg theorem. I mentioned it to him at Fridays tutorial - and yes the irony was not lost on him. BTW I am a bit upset at the current math degree - you no longer have to do your 'epslonics' - in fact it has been relegated to a masters/honours year elective subject - evidently students with your view won out and it is now not required. Such is life. I should also mention, since I have done it, I probably won't be taking it at Masters level - but you never know. I already have decided to take more stats/financial math subjects rather than the computational physics stuff because I am a bit sick and tired of programming after doing it for 25 years as a profession. Also students now gripe about different things - one guy enrolled in his Honours year but couldn't find a thesis advisor. When I did it I was advised to forget about an Honours year and do a Masters instead for that very reason - you can do a Masters by all coursework, coursework and thesis, or purely by thesis - the choice is yours. And to get into a PhD program you need at least a high second class Honours - preferably first class honours. With a Masters as long as you pass they will generally admit you - although if you just passed on your third try you probably would be discouraged. Trouble is, here in Australia, Masters are generally not Government sponsored - Honours years are. Thanks Bill >> > PD > >> > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > theorem. I mentioned it to him at Fridays tutorial - and yes the irony was > not lost on him. I do not enjoy the exceptionally rigorous mathematics, but I recognize the need. Thanks to such irritating work, stuff like Fourier analysis is on solid ground. Stuff like existence theorems I use implicitly when I solve a differential equation. I, however, have no interest in proving them. The knowledge that the relevant theorems exist is enough for me. At any rate, it sounds like you are enjoying your classes. As long as I'm not stuck doing epsilon-delta style proofs [RAGE!!! I HATE THOSE!] I will be happy. Pure mathematics would drive me batshit insane. I'm too much of a physicist in mindset. I would like to believe I can borrow from pure math at will without getting too confused, though. I have enough of a math background that I routinely worry "eh can we really do this" in my various courses and it helps me spot subtleties that I would otherwise miss. > BTW I am a bit upset at the current math degree - you no longer have to do > your 'epslonics' - in fact it has been relegated to a masters/honours year [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the computational physics stuff because I am a bit sick and tired of > programming after doing it for 25 years as a profession. Yea that's odd. If I decide to spend another semester or two, I could pick up a math degree in addition to my physics degree. Two of those classes are called "advanced calculus" which essentially proves every theorem ever used in calculus from the ground up using epsilon-delta proofs - which I think are your epslonics - WHICH I HATE. SO MUCH. I don't think a math degree should be without those, and my dislike of them makes me wonder if I really want that additional degree. > Also students now gripe about different things - one guy enrolled in his > Honours year but couldn't find a thesis advisor. When I did it I was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > discouraged. Trouble is, here in Australia, Masters are generally not > Government sponsored - Honours years are. Interesting. While I doubt I will be pursuing an education in Australia it is always interesting to hear how other places do things. Are you going via thesis, or just coursework? Or both? Since you are enrolled in a course, I think I can assume it won't be thesis only - which is something I had never heard of. > Thanks > Bill > > >> > PD >> >> > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > enrolled in a course, I think I can assume it won't be thesis only - > which is something I had never heard of. Probably by coursework only - the reason being the trouble in finding a thesis advisor. Here is what I am doing - http://www.courses.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Courses.woa/wa/selectMajorFromM ain?structureID=10829&courseID=4199#10829 I am doing the Mathematical Modelling/Applied Mathematics strand with fluid dynamics and stuff like that. But as mentioned I am thinking of giving the computational physics stuff a miss and do a bit more stats and financial math. The thesis/research Masters is: http://www.courses.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Courses.woa/wa/selectMajorFromM ain?courseID=4224 It has a small coursework component. Thanks Bill >> Thanks >> Bill >> >> >> > PD >>>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > It amuses me to no end to see it explained that while it takes 5 > pieces, it is impossible to cut a sphere up into those 5 pieces. Actually it is possible with a sphere, just not with a bowling ball. :) > I found the link to the Axiom of Choice to be quite interesting, > despite how much I hated my proofs class and any usage of formal > proofs in mathematics. That class _definitely_ excluded pure > mathematics from the list of Things I Want To Be When I Finally Grow > Up. Not to preach, but doing proofs (even if they seem pointless), enhances the ability to think logically and precisely, anf that's valuable no matter what you choose to become. >>>PD jem wrote: > PD wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > A more legit paradox is that a sphere can be cut into 5 pieces and > reassembled to form 2 spheres each identical to the original. I've fiddled with those dissection 'paradoxes'. I would hesitate to say they were less legit than Banach-Tarski. While it can be said that certain areas are less visible than others there were other considerations that made them very interesting and even more puzzling. I can't recall exactly what it was without digging it up on my hard drive but it had something to do with certain examples where the interpretation of the origin of the areas became extremely arbitrary. > jem wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I've fiddled with those dissection 'paradoxes'. > I would hesitate to say they were less legit than Banach-Tarski. In the paper and scissors dissections, a solid figure is decomposed into a figure with a hole in it, and the increased area equals the area of the hole. Almost no one would find that pardoxical, while the B-T decompositions are paradoxical to almost everyone. > While it can be said that certain areas are less visible than others > there were other considerations that made them very interesting > and even more puzzling. I can't recall exactly what it was without > digging it up on my hard drive but it had something to do with > certain examples where the interpretation of the origin of the > areas became extremely arbitrary. One interesting consideration is the role of the Fibbonaci series, where the relationship F(n)*F(n) - F(n-1)*F(n+1) = +/-1 can be exploited geometrically. > > jem wrote: > >>PD wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > the hole. Almost no one would find that pardoxical, while the B-T > decompositions are paradoxical to almost everyone. Figures with holes in them that can be formed but also figures with appendages. It is convenient to describe the apparent differences in terms of equal areas (which many websites on the topic do incorrectly) and simply say: There are no extra or missing areas, just shape differences. A 'paradox' is that the proof of this conclusion involves the denial of it. To prove the conclusion (that there are no extra or missing areas) we have to identify the extra and missing parts (declare their existence) and then show that they cancel each other out. These kinds of proofs are deadly and always generate a house of cards. For instance, it is possible to geometrically cancel the extra or missing areas out and yet still show an extra or missing area. Arithmetically everything is still accounted for but geometrically a further illusion beyond the original is created and it requires a similar yet different proof answering a similar but different question. Holy grail for the gravy train if you don't mind ultimately being burned as a witch. Geometric mean <= Arithmetic mean. > > While it can be said that certain areas are less visible than others > > there were other considerations that made them very interesting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the relationship F(n)*F(n) - F(n-1)*F(n+1) = +/-1 can be exploited > geometrically. That's an interesting generator of shape similarity but it needn't be +/-1. An excess or deficit of many units is possible without loss of illusion. Also the shapes of the holes and appendages need not be rectangular. >>>jem wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Figures with holes in them that can be formed but also > figures with appendages. But the latter won't be used to support claims of paradoxically transforming one area into another. > It is convenient to describe the apparent differences > in terms of equal areas (which many websites on the topic [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and it requires a similar yet different proof answering a similar but different question. > Holy grail for the gravy train if you don't mind ultimately being burned as a witch. What? BTW, in case there's any doubt, that question is rhetorical. > Geometric mean <= Arithmetic mean. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's an interesting generator of shape similarity but it needn't be +/-1. > An excess or deficit of many units is possible without loss of illusion. Any area can be deemed a unit area. > Also the shapes of the holes and appendages need not be rectangular. So? Again, rhetorical. If you want to talk more about this subject, start a new thread in rec.puzzles. On Mar 15, 5:43 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > Yes you got that right roundtrips is what maks SR go round. To defeat > the con of Einstein you will have to let the light travel symetric [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bye JT A true defeat of the twin paradox requires a special geomtry of mass. A twin on a certain trip has no twim anomally of time as long as the relative frame never changes. So as the rocket flies away, a planet must rocket toward the flying twin from the correct direct, nullifiy the paradox in GR. GR can nullify the paradox. Think of the rate of well change relative to change of location in the gravity well. A gravity well moveing toward the person is different from the person moving in the gravity well. A vector in the GR system has this property! It keeps track of all reference. Remmeebr this is General Reltivity where gravity must be fomrulated also. And to allow the rocket to spin arround a moving planet, nulllifies!!!!!!!!!! Have the rocketing twin fly in orbit arround the planet approaching the original planet. And the lost time from the short outbound trip can be made up by the more massive planet!. In sci.physics.relativity, jt64@tele2.se <jt64@tele2.se> wrote on 15 Mar 2007 14:43:49 -0700 <1173995029.123780.242960@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: > Yes you got that right roundtrips is what maks SR go round. To defeat > the con of Einstein you will have to let the light travel symetric [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bye JT You'll have to be more specific. Best I can do here is the classical O-A dual-observer problem, which is indeed symmetric: if O shoots a light beam at A, and A shoots a light beam at O, both observe the same shifting, assuming both use identical equipment (e.g., He/Ne lasers or sodium lamps). Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's important, it's the ability to DO something with it. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On 15 Mar, 22:43, j...@tele2.se wrote: > Yes you got that right roundtrips is what maks SR go round. To defeat > the con of Einstein you will have to let the light travel symetric [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bye JT Well i see you people wrote ALOT of sh.t in this thread that have nothing to do with the subject. But i realise now you idiots have no idea about what simultanity is. Some idiot even gave an example of simultanity between event in different frames. This f.cking event is with in one frame but the f.cking frame event exists at two different moments and places. YEAH YOU GOT THAT RIGHT ONE EVENT, ONE FRAME, BUT AT TWO DIFFERENT PLACES. SO EITHER YOUR f.cking SHIP EXPANDED TO THE TWO PLACES OR YOU f.cked SIMULTANITY SO BAD IT NEVER WILL RECOVER. I beleive the later is more correct. "I am a proud relativist i've been f.cking simultanity since 1903 and i have no plans to stop" Jonas Thörnvall. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.