TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Nov 1, 4:12*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:07*pm, PD wrote:



On Nov 1, 3:47*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:31*pm, PD wrote:

That's certainly true. But if the amount of change of aging and the
amount of change in physical processes and the amount of change in the
rate of a clock (completely independently of its construction) are ALL
in agreement, and those ALL happen to be precisely the change
predicted by knowing something about their common speed relative to an
observer, then it would be an *extraordinary* coincidence that the
change in aging is due to biological effects, and the change in rate
of physical processes is due to the mechanism of that process, and the
change in the rate of the clock has to do with some malfunction in the
clock, all conspiring to give exactly the same amount of change.

Normally, if you have four or five objects, all operating under
different mechanisms and principles, and they are affected IDENTICALLY
by a common circumstance that applies to all, then it is considered
likely that what caused that common effect is the circumstance they
SHARE, not on their differences.

The twins will not age at the same rate. Being at zero G's and dealing
with the radiation associated with not being on the Earth will age the
twins differently.

But being at zero G's and and dealing with radiation out there is not
a feature that affects muon lifetime or the period of a mass
oscillating at the end of a spring.

Both are not biological.

Both are determined by the force associated with the aether in which
they exist.

Prove by calculation that the effect of the force associated with the
aether on a muon, is identical tothe effect of the force associated
with the aether on the period of a mass oscillating on the end of a
spring. If you don't do that, then you are simply hand-waving.


And yet the change in the aging of
the twin is identical to the change in the lifetime of the muon and
identical to the change in the period of the mass oscillating at the
end of a spring.

Of course not. That is confusing physical processes with biological
processes.

Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the
twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of
the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those
amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to
the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were
different in all three cases.

Gee, Mike, for a software guy, you sure are dense as a brick.


It would be an extraordinary coincidence, an incredible conspiracy, if
the effect of zero G's and radiation on the aging of a twin happened
to be EXACTLY the same as the effect observed in muon lifetimes and
oscillation periods -- so much so that it ceases to be believable.
Instead, one looks at what those things share. And in fact, it would
be an extraordinary coincidence if the effect of zero Gs and radiation
turned out to be EXACTLY the amount predicted by relativity.

To say the twins age at the rate at which their associated atomic
clocks tick is unfounded, probably incorrect, and not understanding
what time or biology are.

On Nov 1, 5:21*pm, PD wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:12*pm, mpc755 wrote:



On Nov 1, 5:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 1, 3:47*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:31*pm, PD wrote:

That's certainly true. But if the amount of change of aging and the
amount of change in physical processes and the amount of change in the
rate of a clock (completely independently of its construction) are ALL
in agreement, and those ALL happen to be precisely the change
predicted by knowing something about their common speed relative to an
observer, then it would be an *extraordinary* coincidence that the
change in aging is due to biological effects, and the change in rate
of physical processes is due to the mechanism of that process, and the
change in the rate of the clock has to do with some malfunction in the
clock, all conspiring to give exactly the same amount of change.

Normally, if you have four or five objects, all operating under
different mechanisms and principles, and they are affected IDENTICALLY
by a common circumstance that applies to all, then it is considered
likely that what caused that common effect is the circumstance they
SHARE, not on their differences.

The twins will not age at the same rate. Being at zero G's and dealing
with the radiation associated with not being on the Earth will age the
twins differently.

But being at zero G's and and dealing with radiation out there is not
a feature that affects muon lifetime or the period of a mass
oscillating at the end of a spring.

Both are not biological.

Both are determined by the force associated with the aether in which
they exist.

Prove by calculation that the effect of the force associated with the
aether on a muon, is identical tothe effect of the force associated
with the aether on the period of a mass oscillating on the end of a
spring. If you don't do that, then you are simply hand-waving.



And yet the change in the aging of
the twin is identical to the change in the lifetime of the muon and
identical to the change in the period of the mass oscillating at the
end of a spring.

Of course not. That is confusing physical processes with biological
processes.

Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the
twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of
the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those
amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to
the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were
different in all three cases.


They won't be equal.

The muon 'lifetime' is 100% physical. The mass swinging at the end of
the spring is 100% physical. The twins age biologically.

If you need to equate what is a physical process in nature with
biological processes in order to maintain the delusion the twins will
age at the rate at which their associated atom clocks tick the go for
it.

I understand there is a difference between the rate at which an atomic
clock ticks and the biological processes associated with the twins.

I understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do
with time.

I understand time is a concept.

On 01.11.2010 18:34, Androcles wrote:

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html

Please apply this "definition" to your twin paradox demonstration as you
have clocks A and B so ably modelled:

"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA =
t'A-tB "

Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10 light-years
when v = 0?

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tusselbodger.JPG
(Clock B as observed by A = 10.72 years B time at clock A time of 14.75
years)

When B is stationary in frame A at 10LY, B's clock is showing
10.72 years. A's clock is simultaneously showing 14.75 years.
('Simultaneously' according to the definition you quoted above.)

It would however take another 10 years for this information to reach A.

Since the speed of information is zero in Androcles mind,
it will never reach you, though.
(Which I am sure you yet again will demonstrate.)

Difference is 4 years, Tusseladd is using FTL light.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity." -- Einstein
Hilarious, yes?

Distant galaxies racing away from us are as they were at the time of the Big
Bonk, according to ASSistant professor Tusseladd's model.

Hilarious, yes?

Please supply your explanation NOW, then we can all share the joke.


I will give you another fact to laugh at:
Set 'acceleration distance' and 'acceleration' to maximum.
Clock B will then show just a little more than 3 years when it
reaches 10LY in frame A. Faster than light? :-)

That this phenomenon really happens in the real world is proven by
the cosmic muon lifetime experiment.

Androcles, the trivial tusseladd-beater.

Quite.
You swing a lot, but never hits. :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Nov 1, 2:38*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:21*pm, PD wrote:





On Nov 1, 4:12*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 1, 3:47*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:31*pm, PD wrote:

That's certainly true. But if the amount of change of aging and the
amount of change in physical processes and the amount of change in the
rate of a clock (completely independently of its construction) are ALL
in agreement, and those ALL happen to be precisely the change
predicted by knowing something about their common speed relative to an
observer, then it would be an *extraordinary* coincidence that the
change in aging is due to biological effects, and the change in rate
of physical processes is due to the mechanism of that process, and the
change in the rate of the clock has to do with some malfunction in the
clock, all conspiring to give exactly the same amount of change..

Normally, if you have four or five objects, all operating under
different mechanisms and principles, and they are affected IDENTICALLY
by a common circumstance that applies to all, then it is considered
likely that what caused that common effect is the circumstance they
SHARE, not on their differences.

The twins will not age at the same rate. Being at zero G's and dealing
with the radiation associated with not being on the Earth will age the
twins differently.

But being at zero G's and and dealing with radiation out there is not
a feature that affects muon lifetime or the period of a mass
oscillating at the end of a spring.

Both are not biological.

Both are determined by the force associated with the aether in which
they exist.

Prove by calculation that the effect of the force associated with the
aether on a muon, is identical tothe effect of the force associated
with the aether on the period of a mass oscillating on the end of a
spring. If you don't do that, then you are simply hand-waving.

And yet the change in the aging of
the twin is identical to the change in the lifetime of the muon and
identical to the change in the period of the mass oscillating at the
end of a spring.

Of course not. That is confusing physical processes with biological
processes.

Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the
twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of
the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those
amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to
the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were
different in all three cases.

They won't be equal.

The muon 'lifetime' is 100% physical. The mass swinging at the end of
the spring is 100% physical. The twins age biologically.

If you need to equate what is a physical process in nature with
biological processes in order to maintain the delusion the twins will
age at the rate at which their associated atom clocks tick the go for
it.

I understand there is a difference between the rate at which an atomic
clock ticks and the biological processes associated with the twins.

I understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do
with time.

I understand time is a concept.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Time is in a clock to measure. It is a physical reality.

Mitch Raemsch

On 01.11.2010 06:14, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:49 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html

That did not work for me for either the 32-bit or the 64-bit Microsoft
Internet Explorer browser.

So you should have your computer fixed.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Nov 1, 5:54*pm, BURT wrote:
On Nov 1, 2:38*pm, mpc755 wrote:



On Nov 1, 5:21*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:12*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 1, 3:47*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:31*pm, PD wrote:

That's certainly true. But if the amount of change of aging and the
amount of change in physical processes and the amount of change in the
rate of a clock (completely independently of its construction) are ALL
in agreement, and those ALL happen to be precisely the change
predicted by knowing something about their common speed relative to an
observer, then it would be an *extraordinary* coincidence that the
change in aging is due to biological effects, and the change in rate
of physical processes is due to the mechanism of that process, and the
change in the rate of the clock has to do with some malfunction in the
clock, all conspiring to give exactly the same amount of change.

Normally, if you have four or five objects, all operating under
different mechanisms and principles, and they are affected IDENTICALLY
by a common circumstance that applies to all, then it is considered
likely that what caused that common effect is the circumstance they
SHARE, not on their differences.

The twins will not age at the same rate. Being at zero G's and dealing
with the radiation associated with not being on the Earth will age the
twins differently.

But being at zero G's and and dealing with radiation out there is not
a feature that affects muon lifetime or the period of a mass
oscillating at the end of a spring.

Both are not biological.

Both are determined by the force associated with the aether in which
they exist.

Prove by calculation that the effect of the force associated with the
aether on a muon, is identical tothe effect of the force associated
with the aether on the period of a mass oscillating on the end of a
spring. If you don't do that, then you are simply hand-waving.

And yet the change in the aging of
the twin is identical to the change in the lifetime of the muon and
identical to the change in the period of the mass oscillating at the
end of a spring.

Of course not. That is confusing physical processes with biological
processes.

Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the
twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of
the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those
amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to
the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were
different in all three cases.

They won't be equal.

The muon 'lifetime' is 100% physical. The mass swinging at the end of
the spring is 100% physical. The twins age biologically.

If you need to equate what is a physical process in nature with
biological processes in order to maintain the delusion the twins will
age at the rate at which their associated atom clocks tick the go for
it.

I understand there is a difference between the rate at which an atomic
clock ticks and the biological processes associated with the twins.

I understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do
with time.

I understand time is a concept.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Time is in a clock to measure. It is a physical reality.

Mitch Raemsch

If a battery operated clock begins to tick slower has time slowed?

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| On 01.11.2010 18:34, Androcles wrote:
|
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
|
| Please apply this "definition" to your twin paradox demonstration as you
| have clocks A and B so ably modelled:
|
| "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to
travel
| from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."
| "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA =
| t'A-tB "
|
| Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10
light-years
| when v = 0?
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tusselbodger.JPG
| (Clock B as observed by A = 10.72 years B time at clock A time of 14.75
| years)
|
| When B is stationary in frame A at 10LY, B's clock is showing
| 10.72 years. A's clock is simultaneously showing 14.75 years.
| ('Simultaneously' according to the definition you quoted above.)
|
| It would however take another 10 years for this information to reach A.


According to andersen/twins.html, Clock B as OBSERVED by A = 10.72 years.
OBVIOUSLY this is an error, as I have told you a LOT of times.
Please explain whether you meant "observed by god" or simply forgot about
Doppler shift.
Hilarious, yes?



| Since the speed of information is zero in Androcles mind,
| it will never reach you, though.
| (Which I am sure you yet again will demonstrate.)

False information isn't taken in. You meant OBSERVED by YOUR
god, not "observed by A". Correct your "program".
Hilarious, yes?



|
| Difference is 4 years, Tusseladd is using FTL light.
| "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
| infinitely great velocity." -- Einstein
| Hilarious, yes?
|
| Distant galaxies racing away from us are as they were at the time of the
Big
| Bonk, according to ASSistant professor Tusseladd's model.
|
| Hilarious, yes?
|
| Please supply your explanation NOW, then we can all share the joke.
|
|
| I will give you another fact to laugh at:
| Set 'acceleration distance' and 'acceleration' to maximum.
| Clock B will then show just a little more than 3 years when it
| reaches 10LY in frame A. Faster than light? :-)
|
| That this phenomenon really happens in the real world is proven by
| the cosmic muon lifetime experiment.
--
Peer reviewed publication.

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/TimeLifeMezon/301-305Nature.pdf

Bailey, Borer et. al:
tau = tau0 / [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] = gamma.tau0
Einstein: tau = t * [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] =
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif

Tusseladd: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Einstein: tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Somebody doesn't know multiplication from division.
Somebody else doesn't know subtraction from addition.
Somebody is cooking the books to get the result they want.
Somebody is LYING.
While no theory can be proven, it can be disproven by example.
Bailey, Borer et. al. have DISPROVEN relativity.

So much for peer-review.
That this phenomenon really happens in the real world is proven by
the peers of an idiot.

| Androcles, the trivial tusseladd-beater.
|
| Quite.
| You swing a lot, but never hits. :-)

The thicker the skull the denser the 2x4 needed to crack it.
I don't have a depleted uranium brickbat.

Your programming skills are similar to Wilson's, notably when the above
parameters are run from B's view and FTL motion of the Earth is observed
by god, in violation of Einstein's first postulate, wherein it states "The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion".

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -- Bigot Andersen, Tusseladd

It's so OBVIOUS it is painful, and it's only taken you 10 years to
call it "trivial".
Hilarious, yes?

Androcles, the tusseladd-beater.

On Nov 1, 4:38*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:21*pm, PD wrote:



On Nov 1, 4:12*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 1, 3:47*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:31*pm, PD wrote:

That's certainly true. But if the amount of change of aging and the
amount of change in physical processes and the amount of change in the
rate of a clock (completely independently of its construction) are ALL
in agreement, and those ALL happen to be precisely the change
predicted by knowing something about their common speed relative to an
observer, then it would be an *extraordinary* coincidence that the
change in aging is due to biological effects, and the change in rate
of physical processes is due to the mechanism of that process, and the
change in the rate of the clock has to do with some malfunction in the
clock, all conspiring to give exactly the same amount of change..

Normally, if you have four or five objects, all operating under
different mechanisms and principles, and they are affected IDENTICALLY
by a common circumstance that applies to all, then it is considered
likely that what caused that common effect is the circumstance they
SHARE, not on their differences.

The twins will not age at the same rate. Being at zero G's and dealing
with the radiation associated with not being on the Earth will age the
twins differently.

But being at zero G's and and dealing with radiation out there is not
a feature that affects muon lifetime or the period of a mass
oscillating at the end of a spring.

Both are not biological.

Both are determined by the force associated with the aether in which
they exist.

Prove by calculation that the effect of the force associated with the
aether on a muon, is identical tothe effect of the force associated
with the aether on the period of a mass oscillating on the end of a
spring. If you don't do that, then you are simply hand-waving.

And yet the change in the aging of
the twin is identical to the change in the lifetime of the muon and
identical to the change in the period of the mass oscillating at the
end of a spring.

Of course not. That is confusing physical processes with biological
processes.

Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the
twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of
the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those
amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to
the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were
different in all three cases.

They won't be equal.

Data?


The muon 'lifetime' is 100% physical. The mass swinging at the end of
the spring is 100% physical. The twins age biologically.

It is still extraordinarily unlikely that the "force of aether" on a
muon and on a mass attached to a spring yields EXACTLY the same amount
of rate change, and moreover EXACTLY the amount of rate change
predicted by relativity.

How *much* -- a number, please -- would you expect for the fractional
change in the period of a mass oscillating on a spring which is
traveling at 1.00E5 m/s relative to an observer? Place the observer at
rest in the aether, if you like. Can't do the calculation? With
relativity you can.


If you need to equate what is a physical process in nature with
biological processes in order to maintain the delusion the twins will
age at the rate at which their associated atom clocks tick the go for
it.

I understand there is a difference between the rate at which an atomic
clock ticks and the biological processes associated with the twins.

Really? Biological processes are electrochemical. Electrochemistry is
based on the four fundamental physical interactions.


I understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do
with time.

I understand time is a concept.

On Nov 1, 9:48*pm, PD wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:38*pm, mpc755 wrote:



On Nov 1, 5:21*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:12*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 1, 3:47*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:31*pm, PD wrote:

That's certainly true. But if the amount of change of aging and the
amount of change in physical processes and the amount of change in the
rate of a clock (completely independently of its construction) are ALL
in agreement, and those ALL happen to be precisely the change
predicted by knowing something about their common speed relative to an
observer, then it would be an *extraordinary* coincidence that the
change in aging is due to biological effects, and the change in rate
of physical processes is due to the mechanism of that process, and the
change in the rate of the clock has to do with some malfunction in the
clock, all conspiring to give exactly the same amount of change.

Normally, if you have four or five objects, all operating under
different mechanisms and principles, and they are affected IDENTICALLY
by a common circumstance that applies to all, then it is considered
likely that what caused that common effect is the circumstance they
SHARE, not on their differences.

The twins will not age at the same rate. Being at zero G's and dealing
with the radiation associated with not being on the Earth will age the
twins differently.

But being at zero G's and and dealing with radiation out there is not
a feature that affects muon lifetime or the period of a mass
oscillating at the end of a spring.

Both are not biological.

Both are determined by the force associated with the aether in which
they exist.

Prove by calculation that the effect of the force associated with the
aether on a muon, is identical tothe effect of the force associated
with the aether on the period of a mass oscillating on the end of a
spring. If you don't do that, then you are simply hand-waving.

And yet the change in the aging of
the twin is identical to the change in the lifetime of the muon and
identical to the change in the period of the mass oscillating at the
end of a spring.

Of course not. That is confusing physical processes with biological
processes.

Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the
twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of
the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those
amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to
the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were
different in all three cases.

They won't be equal.

Data?


Data they will be equal?



The muon 'lifetime' is 100% physical. The mass swinging at the end of
the spring is 100% physical. The twins age biologically.

It is still extraordinarily unlikely that the "force of aether" on a
muon and on a mass attached to a spring yields EXACTLY the same amount
of rate change, and moreover EXACTLY the amount of rate change
predicted by relativity.


Of course it is. In a vacuum in the same environment what is acting on
the muon and the spring is the force of the aether.

How *much* -- a number, please -- would you expect for the fractional
change in the period of a mass oscillating on a spring which is
traveling at 1.00E5 m/s relative to an observer? Place the observer at
rest in the aether, if you like. Can't do the calculation? With
relativity you can.


How about a calculation which determines how the biological process of
a twin are directly tied to the rate at which the associated atomic
clock ticks without any regards to zero G's or radiation.



If you need to equate what is a physical process in nature with
biological processes in order to maintain the delusion the twins will
age at the rate at which their associated atom clocks tick the go for
it.

I understand there is a difference between the rate at which an atomic
clock ticks and the biological processes associated with the twins.

Really? Biological processes are electrochemical. Electrochemistry is
based on the four fundamental physical interactions.


So now you are stating the twin in the spaceship and the twin on the
Earth age at the rate of their associated atomic clocks regardless of
the gravity each exists in, or doesn't exist in, or the radiation each
is affected by and so on.

The rate at which a twin ages is not directly tied to the rate at
which an atomic clock ticks.

On Nov 1, 2:57 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 01.11.2010 06:14, Koobee Wublee wrote:

That [http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html]
did not work for me for either the 32-bit or the 64-bit Microsoft
Internet Explorer browser.

So you should have your computer fixed.

No, I am not energetic to do something for the proliferation of
Einstein Dingleberrism. You have to understand my point of view on
that one. :-)

Although yours truly is a very lousy poke player,
I will call your bluff any day that you do not have
an acceleration model for the Lorentz transform or the
equivalence of it. shrug

Yours truly still stands by calling our little professor’s bluff. :-)

We are witnessing over and over again that a professor
of applied physics or RF fails to understand the nonsense
in SR. His experiences should have given him a hint that
nothing can be resolved with only the nonsense of SR.

Is that not a good advice since the little professor from Trondheim
cannot even name a very single incidence where relativity does apply
to his overly exulted works? :-)

That includes GPS in which the little and clueless professor
is at lost at what parameter is the essence in
synchronization. Oh, don’t tell me it is the set of carrier
frequencies. :-)

Well, yours truly did recall the little professor from Trondheim did
point out it was not the carrier frequencies that are at the issue of
GPS synchronization, but he fails miserably at what the true issues
are. Any engineers responsible for this type of blunder would face
unemployment in no time. In the academics, their excuses seem to be
very creative. Would “I don’t have any applications that applies to
relativity” be a good alibi? Then, why does the little professor from
Trondheim promote the nonsense of SR? Yours truly see no other
defense to GR besides GR. Does the little professor from Trondheim
not understand GR? It is OK because very few of the self-styled
physicists even understand where the geodesic equations, the Riemann
curvature tensor, and the Einstein field equations are derived. Is
physics the only field where the experts do not have to understand the
subject mattered?