View Single Post
Old January 8th 13, 03:20 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
external usenet poster
Posts: 974
Default Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.

Einsteimania is no solely the fault
of herr doktor-proffesor E. --
see the book on fractals and power-laws e.g.

anyway, do you see that teh angular momentum
of atoms, at least, explains inertia,

I was not referring to the die-hard Einstein supporters

the Grace datum clearly shows that thoswe two icesheets
are still rising, but it can't be by very much;
they have always been stacked to the gills.

The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica contain about 99.5 per cent
of the Earth's glacier ice and could raise sea levels by 65 metres if
they melted completely although experts think this is highly
unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, a survey of the world's
top 26 glaciologists found most believe melting of the ice sheets
could be more rapid and severe than previously estimated. They believe

GR is no more of a theory
about the curvature of space, which is clearly manifest
to geometers (viz, Eratosthenes and Gauss),
than it explains what causes gravity, the same as Fig Newton.

however, it is simplicity, itself, to adduce the curvature
of space from Newton's "decategorified" equation
of "universal gravity." (obviously,
Kepler did all of the legwork .-)

the sole determinant of the speed (not velocity) of light,
is the index of refraction of the medium,
viz Snell's law.

the classsical problem was Liebniz's *brachistochrone*, although
one has to realize that the ray-tracing idealization is not a natter
of importance; just of interpretation ... and
thr same applies to Minkowskian ligthconeheads, like Feynman.

read the original write-up of the "two-pihole experiment"
by Young, which totally exposed Newton's untheory
of "corpuscles" of light, a 100 years after he screwed-up Snell's law
-- just like Descartes, did.


my main concern, for using diadians (or tau) is that
the simplicity of (viz) radar distances is obscured;
also, how to avoid confusion with radians (or "pi+pi"),
since pi is generally considered to be a dimensionless constant,
by some argument or other.

--yay; a new proof of Fermat's 'little' theorm!