|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
On Jan 17, 10:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
We humans use mathematics in physical theories to MODEL nature. But anyone with any sense does not confuse the two as you seem to do. Speaking of which, you did. Recall you said, Actual experiments that reproduce the "twin scenario" confirm the predictions of SR. No matter how much idiots deny it, the fact is that the "twin paradox" occurs in the world we inhabit, and SR is an accurate model within its domain.” http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4b2a1e4839fbc4 Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real life by the very mathematics. So, do you really think putting that phrase in quotes does rub off some mathemaGical properties of SR, seriously? shrug Your presentations of so-called proof of “twins’ paradox” are so lame. They only disprove the principle of relativity and support the existence of the absolute frame of reference. In doing so, the Aether must exist without any reasons of doubt. shrug Oh, yes. You have the right to remain silent as usual, and anything you say may be used against you. shrug Science is the systematic process of constructing models of the world we inhabit, testing them via experiments and observations, and refining and improving them based on those results. However, you have to admit that if any hypothesis in physics cannot be backed up by mathematics, it is indeed philosophy, and in doing so, it just cannot be deemed valid. shrug Mathematics is not anything like that at all -- as I said, it is a purely intellectual pursuit, in which the world is irrelevant and experiments are simply not possible. The subject of science is the world we inhabit. The subject of mathematics is abstractions of the human mind. Yes, mathematics is merely a tool, but please do not downgrade its vital importance in physics. Any hypothesis cannot be seriously accepted without mathematics backing it up. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
On Jan 18, 8:05*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: We humans use mathematics in physical theories to MODEL nature. But anyone with any sense does not confuse the two as you seem to do. Speaking of which, you did. *Recall you said, Actual experiments that reproduce the "twin scenario" confirm the predictions of SR. *No matter how much idiots deny it, the fact is that the "twin paradox" occurs in the world we inhabit, and SR is an accurate model within its domain.”http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/934b2a1e483... Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real life by the very mathematics. How so? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
Quoting is screwed up.
On 1/18/12 1/18/12 3:55 AM, Rupert wrote: On Jan 18, 8:05 am, Koobee wrote: On Jan 17, 10:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: We humans use mathematics in physical theories to MODEL nature. But anyone with any sense does not confuse the two as you seem to do. Speaking of which, you did. Recall you said, Koobee said the above. He quoted me saying: Actual experiments that reproduce the "twin scenario" confirm the predictions of SR. No matter how much idiots deny it, the fact is that the "twin paradox" occurs in the world we inhabit, and SR is an accurate model within its domain. Then Koobee made this blatantly false statement: Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real life by the very mathematics. How so? It is not possible to "prove" anything about the real world, because proof is an aspect of mathematics, not the world. Koobee makes the very confusion he accuses me of. Since the "twins paradox"is OBSERVED in the real world, Koobee's remarks are just plain wrong. Tom Roberts |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
On Jan 18, 1:55 am, Rupert wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:05 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: Actual experiments that reproduce the "twin scenario" confirm the predictions of SR. No matter how much idiots deny it, the fact is that the "twin paradox" occurs in the world we inhabit, and SR is an accurate model within its domain.” http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4b2a1e4839fbc4 Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real life by the very mathematics. How so? Glad you ask. Each resolution to the twins’ paradox comes in four stages. How long each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its hypnotic appetite is. The stages a **** Desperation It must be very heart breaking for the Einstein Dingleberries to watch their beloved SR getting **** canned. shrug **** Hope This is more like false hope because the Einstein Dingleberries just cannot walk away from that pile of crap called SR. shrug **** Zealot Every day wishing for this false hope is going to trig the mind to believe in a false resolution. It does not matter how ****ed up or stupid the resolution is. As soon as the Einstein Dingleberries sink their teeth into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them from SR. Waiting for rapture is very much the only mental activity left. shrug **** Awakening After a while, the scientist in their id will be finally knocking on their consciousness. They will start to realize just how fvcking stupid they were with such zeal in their faith. shrug **** Desperation And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at least three such cycles so far. shrug **** Acceleration This crap was first proposed by Born by equating any acceleration with gravitational acceleration, and thus it inherits the nature of gravitational time dilation. To this day, there is not a piece of mathematical analysis that supports this resolution, and no single experiment has shown acceleration manifests time dilation. shrug **** Diagram Some idiots thought the twins’ paradox can be resolved by drawing a few lines in their so-called spacetime diagram. This resolution seems to have the least amount of survival time. There are almost no idiots following this cult anymore. shrug **** MathemaGics Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform, the twins’ paradox actually involves two different set of the Lorentz transforms. The first set describes observers 1 and 2 observing 3. ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Where ** dt1 = time flow rate of 1 ** [v12] = velocity of 2 as observed by 1 ** [s13] = displacement vector of 3 as observed by 1 ** All others self-explanatory The other set of the Lorentz transform is where 1 and 2 are observing 4: ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s24] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Since there only two observers and each observer behaving as the observed, these two sets of the Lorentz transform above must be reduced with 3 and 4 merged appropriately into 1 and 2. So, taking one equation from each transform, we have ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Then, it is easy to merge 3 into 2 and 4 into 1 from the two equations above. ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s11] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Or ** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Where ** d[s11] = d[s22] = 0 Since the two equations above cannot possibly co-exist, the twins’ paradox becomes very real. However, the self-styled physicists possess no analytical skills. In this matheMagic show, they have demonstrated a lack of understanding in the Lorentz transform (as well as the Galilean transform). To reduce the Lorentz transform from two observers (1 and 2) and one observed (3 or 4) into just two observers (1 and 2) where each observer is observing the other, they decide to favor either 1 or 2 by using the same transform. Following through the mathemaGics, the Lorentz transform becomes: ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Or ** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Where ** [v12] = - [v21] And thus avoiding the paradox through mathemaGics. **** Pathlength The latest crap to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’ paradox. Some self-styled physicists are beginning to realize how ****ing stupid they have been by accepting this nonsense. shrug * * * * * Each resolution to the twins’ paradox comes in four stages. How long each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its hypnotic appetite is. The stages a **** Desperation It must be very heart breaking for the Einstein Dingleberries to watch their beloved SR getting **** canned. shrug **** Hope This is more like false hope because the Einstein Dingleberries just cannot walk away from that pile of crap called SR. shrug **** Zealot Every day wishing for this false hope is going to trig the mind to believe in a false resolution. It does not matter how ****ed up or stupid the resolution is. As soon as the Einstein Dingleberries sink their teeth into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them from SR. Waiting for rapture is very much the only mental activity left. shrug **** Awakening After a while, the scientist in their id will be finally knocking on their consciousness. They will start to realize just how fvcking stupid they were with such zeal in their faith. shrug **** Desperation And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at least three such cycles so far. shrug **** Acceleration This crap was first proposed by Born by equating any acceleration with gravitational acceleration, and thus it inherits the nature of gravitational time dilation. To this day, there is not a piece of mathematical analysis that supports this resolution, and no single experiment has shown acceleration manifests time dilation. shrug **** Diagram Some idiots thought the twins’ paradox can be resolved by drawing a few lines in their so-called spacetime diagram. This resolution seems to have the least amount of survival time. There are almost no idiots following this cult anymore. shrug **** MathemaGics Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform, the twins’ paradox actually involves two different set of the Lorentz transforms. The first set describes observers 1 and 2 observing 3. ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Where ** dt1 = time flow rate of 1 ** [v12] = velocity of 2 as observed by 1 ** [s13] = displacement vector of 3 as observed by 1 ** All others self-explanatory The other set of the Lorentz transform is where 1 and 2 are observing 4: ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s24] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Since there only two observers and each observer behaving as the observed, these two sets of the Lorentz transform above must be reduced with 3 and 4 merged appropriately into 1 and 2. So, taking one equation from each transform, we have ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Then, it is easy to merge 3 into 2 and 4 into 1 from the two equations above. ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s11] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Or ** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Where ** d[s11] = d[s22] = 0 Since the two equations above cannot possibly co-exist, the twins’ paradox becomes very real. However, the self-styled physicists possess no analytical skills. In this matheMagic show, they have demonstrated a lack of understanding in the Lorentz transform (as well as the Galilean transform). To reduce the Lorentz transform from two observers (1 and 2) and one observed (3 or 4) into just two observers (1 and 2) where each observer is observing the other, they decide to favor either 1 or 2 by using the same transform. Following through the mathemaGics, the Lorentz transform becomes: ** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Or ** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2) And ** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2) Where ** [v12] = - [v21] And thus avoiding the paradox through mathemaGics. **** Pathlength The latest crap to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out for the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture of SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging in proper time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’ paradox. Some self-styled physicists are beginning to realize how ****ing stupid they have been by accepting this nonsense. shrug **** Conclusion So, realizing all resolutions so far are just hopeless, the self- styled physicists either ignore the twins’ paradox or go back to one of these resolutions. Jumping from resolution to another seems not to be getting old for these idiots. Fvcking sad, no? shrug The whole episode of SR and GR can be summarized as follows. ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS THEORY ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** BULL**** IS TRUTH ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION shrug |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
On Jan 18, 1:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Quoting is screwed up. It sounds like you are regretting whatever you have said in the past. Yes, you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can and may be used against you. shrug Koobee quoted me saying: “Actual experiments that reproduce the "twin scenario" confirm the predictions of SR. No matter how much idiots deny it, the fact is that the "twin paradox" occurs in the world we inhabit, and SR is an accurate model within its domain.” Yes, is Tom denying it? shrug Then Koobee made this blatantly false statement: “Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real life by the very mathematics.” Why is it a false statement? The twins’ paradox presents this paradox where each twin observes the other to be younger at the same time and same place. For the zombies who are so indulged in Einstein Dingleberryism, that means same spacetime. The said observed result just can never happen in real life. So, claiming to have observed the twins’ paradox is just plain lying. shrug It is not possible to "prove" anything about the real world, because proof is an aspect of mathematics, not the world. Koobee makes the very confusion he accuses me of. Oh, where did Koobee Wublee prove the real world using mathematics? Is it another lie? shrug Since the "twins paradox" is OBSERVED in the real world, Koobee's remarks are just plain wrong. Amazing garbage. A paradox is a contradiction and cannot possibly have been observed. Get over with that, Tom. After all, you are an experimental physicist. Don’t make conclusions based on your zealous belief. After all, we are discussing about science not your personal belief. shrug |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
“Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real
life by the very mathematics.” Nope. Why is it a false statement? *The twins’ paradox presents this paradox where each twin observes the other to be younger at the same time and same place. Nope. That is NOT what SR says/implies. SR implies that the inertial clock *you pose* as "staying home" will indicate a greater value than the other one that rejoins it.. Depending on the narrated scenario, authors interpret/call this as "aging". SR simply says tt' (and by how much). The rest is our personal wordings that are not part of relativity. *The said observed result just can never happen in real life. Liar. It has been done and observed. It is done and observed on a regular basis. Amazing garbage. *A paradox is a contradiction and cannot possibly have been observed. True. But you are confusing the two different meanings of "paradox". (1) A paradox is an *apparent* contradiction. (2) a paradox is a contradiction. In the Twin "paradox", the word paradox has the first (1) meaning, not the second one. You need to learn the meaning of the words used in our community if you want to understand us. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
On Jan 19, 8:05 am, rotchm wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote: “Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real life by the very mathematics.” Nope. Wrong answer. shrug Why is it a false statement? The twins’ paradox presents this paradox where each twin observes the other to be younger at the same time and same place. Nope. That is NOT what SR says/implies. Another wrong answer. SR implies that the inertial clock *you pose* as "staying home" will indicate a greater value than the other one that rejoins it.. What does imply mean? Does it or does it not? Wishy washy? shrug Due to the symmetry of the Lorentz transform, what you have claimed is not possible. shrug Want to show some math? Depending on the narrated scenario, authors interpret/call this as "aging". SR simply says tt' (and by how much). The rest is our personal wordings that are not part of relativity. So, you have different words describing time flow rate, and depending on the scenario, you will use each word to mystify the argument. shrug The said observed result just can never happen in real life. Liar. It has been done and observed. Bull****. A paradox by definition can never be observed in nature. A paradox represents an impossible event. shrug It is done and observed on a regular basis. Liar. shrug Amazing garbage. A paradox is a contradiction and cannot possibly have been observed. True. But you are confusing the two different meanings of "paradox". (1) A paradox is an *apparent* contradiction. (2) a paradox is a contradiction. In the Twin "paradox", the word paradox has the first (1) meaning, not the second one. You need to learn the meaning of the words used in our community if you want to understand us. So, you are treating physics as interpretation of some scripture. You just fvck with the word until it means what you want it to mean. What an idiot! shrug |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
On Jan 18, 1:05*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: We humans use mathematics in physical theories to MODEL nature. But anyone with any sense does not confuse the two as you seem to do. Speaking of which, you did. *Recall you said, Actual experiments that reproduce the "twin scenario" confirm the predictions of SR. *No matter how much idiots deny it, the fact is that the "twin paradox" occurs in the world we inhabit, and SR is an accurate model within its domain.”http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/934b2a1e483... Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real life by the very mathematics. *So, do you really think putting that phrase in quotes does rub off some mathemaGical properties of SR, seriously? *shrug Your presentations of so-called proof of “twins’ paradox” are so lame. *They only disprove the principle of relativity and support the existence of the absolute frame of reference. *In doing so, the Aether must exist without any reasons of doubt. *shrug Oh, yes. *You have the right to remain silent as usual, and anything you say may be used against you. *shrug Science is the systematic process of constructing models of the world we inhabit, testing them via experiments and observations, and refining and improving them based on those results. However, you have to admit that if any hypothesis in physics cannot be backed up by mathematics, it is indeed philosophy, and in doing so, it just cannot be deemed valid. *shrug Mathematics is not anything like that at all -- as I said, it is a purely intellectual pursuit, in which the world is irrelevant and experiments are simply not possible. The subject of science is the world we inhabit. The subject of mathematics is abstractions of the human mind. Yes, mathematics is merely a tool, but please do not downgrade its vital importance in physics. *Any hypothesis cannot be seriously accepted without mathematics backing it up. *shrug The better the math the better the science. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
an ordinary (flat) movie is "3d,"
in the silly zeitgesit of Minkowski's "spacetime" slogans. what is wrong with the usaul write-up of the twins problem, if there is no difference in the Doppler-Fizeau shifts for the accelerating twin? thus: kind of a chicken-egg/domesticated jungle foul dillema, if any.... "dillema," well; the problem is with the misnomenclatura of "global" warming, when insolation it utterly differential from the equator to the poles. thus: I'm changing my handle to Anthoprocene Nocturnal Tweets; as far as I know, no-one has bothered to model a glass house, at a particular location (or lattitude, if only one "dimension" is y'know). thus: nice rule of thumb. "Both deforestation and forest degradation from fire and logging reduce forest transpiration, which accounts for roughly a third of the moisture that forms precipitation over the Amazon basin." thus: any number of tidal gauges, such as at Maldives. the revised header addresses also the continued increase in height of GrIS and AnIS, however small that may have to be. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEINIANA: ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 8 | April 28th 11 07:37 AM |
simultaneity of relativity. | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | May 25th 06 02:48 PM |
simultaneity of relativity. | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 25th 06 02:48 PM |
Absolute simultaneity, AT ONCE (except in GR). | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | February 6th 06 09:21 AM |
Absolute simultaneity, AT ONCE (except in GR). | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 6th 06 09:21 AM |