A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 18th 12, 08:05 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 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  
Old January 18th 12, 10:55 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Rupert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old January 18th 12, 10:17 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Tom Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default 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  
Old January 19th 12, 07:59 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 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  
Old January 19th 12, 08:14 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 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  
Old January 19th 12, 05:05 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
rotchm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default 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  
Old January 20th 12, 01:11 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 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  
Old January 20th 12, 01:37 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
John Gogo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default 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  
Old January 20th 12, 03:31 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.