A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

What is or is not a paradox?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 2nd 13, 07:38 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

[snipped SR sermons]

At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.

[snipped more SR scriptures]

But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
which aren't science.


Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.
Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug

Antitheses to SR a

** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz

Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. shrug

The following sum up the self-styled physicists.

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug
  #2  
Old January 2nd 13, 11:14 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

[snipped SR sermons]

At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.

[snipped more SR scriptures]

But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
which aren't science.


Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.


SIC!!!!

Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug

Antitheses to SR a

** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz

Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. shrug


Dirk, immortal fumble?


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #3  
Old January 3rd 13, 03:39 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default What is or is not a paradox?

I'd have liked to have seen your article on gyros,
re relativity. anyway, "paradoxy" is simply attempts
to resolve between "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy,"
with the paradoxes of Xeno taken as exemplars
relating to the convergence of sums of geometrical series;
the real problem is Minkowski's bogus "spactimey" orthodoxy,
and all of the lightconeheads up to and beyond Feynman:
totally obfusfacatory; simply use quaternionsa,
wherein Hamilton's lagnuage of vector mechamics uses the "real,
scalar" part to be the time "dimension."
  #4  
Old January 3rd 13, 09:57 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:


Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.


SIC!!!!

Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug


Antitheses to SR a


** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz


Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. shrug


Dirk, immortal fumble?


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox.
Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific
method. The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is
an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein
Dingleberry anyway? :-)

Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t
you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and
save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it.
Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to
get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug
  #5  
Old January 3rd 13, 11:41 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On 03.01.2013 09:57, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:


Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.


SIC!!!!

Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug


Antitheses to SR a


** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz


Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. shrug


Dirk, immortal fumble?


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox.


My mathematic trick:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific
method.


Quite.
It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific
method is way beyond my mental abilities.

The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is
an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein
Dingleberry anyway? :-)

Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t
you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and
save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it.
Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to
get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug


Your argument are as lethal as always.

For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf
thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero
at the instant when they were co-located:
http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8

And you made me aware that I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
had confused parallax and aberration:
http://tinyurl.com/nje25b

And you also proved that even if it is experimentally
proven that the velocity of the star contributes nothing
to stellar aberration, the velocity of the star is
very much important in determining this aberration.
http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #6  
Old January 3rd 13, 06:22 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default What is or is not a paradox?

that was funny, although I don't usually link
to stuff, and did not. poor Kooby Doobyy and his tired aetherism.

I suppose that he takes Russel's illinguistic paradoxes on faith,
anyway -- praise Lawd Berty!
  #7  
Old January 4th 13, 12:07 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:


Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.


Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug


Antitheses to SR a


** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz


Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. shrug


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox.


My mathematic trick: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html


Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not
resist to get his butt kicked again. Let’s spank more of the little
professor’s ass. Ahahaha...

Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific
method.


Quite.
It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific
method is way beyond my mental abilities.


Only to the little professor. Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat
the essence of scientific method. There is nothing wrong about the
statement below. shrug

“Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to
validate only one of these hypotheses.”

The exact episode is like the children’s story “Blind men and the
elephant”. Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the
Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is.
Gee! You can even take hints from children’s story books.
Ahahahaha...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant

Please do bookmark this one. So, a few months or years down the road,
we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway.
Ahahahaha...

The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is
an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein
Dingleberry anyway? :-)


Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t
you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and
save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it.
Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to
get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug


Your argument are as lethal as always.


You bet. shrug

For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf
thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero
at the instant when they were co-located:
http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8


On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have

delta = (delta_A – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)

Where

** B^2 = v^2 / c^2

It can easily be

Delta_A = (delta – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)

The bottom line is the equation describing the segment of Minkowski
spacetime using your labeling system:

** c^2 dt_AC^2 – ds_AC^2 = c^2 dt_BC^2 – ds_BC^2

Where

** ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

The equation can be written as follows.

** dt_AC^2 (1 – B_AC^2) = dt_BC^2 (1 – B_BC^2)

Where

** B_AC c = Speed of C as observed by A
** B_BC c = Speed of C as observed by B

From A’s point of view trying to compare the rate of time flows with
C, B and C are the same. Thus, the equation above simplifies into the
following.

** dt_AB^2 (1 – B_AB^2) = dt_BB^2 (1 – B_BB^2) = dt_BB^2

Where

** B_AB c = Speed of B as observed by A
** B_BB c = 0

On the other hand, from C’s pint of view observing A, B and A are the
same. Thus, the spacetime equation has to be interpreted differently
as the following.

** dt_AA^2 (1 – B_AA^2) = dt_BA^2 (1 – B_BA^2) = dt_AA^2

Where

** B_AA c = 0
** B_BA c = Speed of A as observed by B

The only time when there is no paradox is when (B_AB = B_BA = 0).
This is what the Lorentz symmetry is all about such that there is no
special treatment on the one that is moving, and the little professor
from Norway fails miserably on this one. SPANK SPANK SPANK

It is time for paul to join another paul aka sylvia, absolute dick,
little bitch, etc. better known as PD for another divine vision to
resolve the paradox --- projection of proper time. Tom used to
believe in that crap, but he is now back to the first divine vision
promoted by promoted by Olivia Newton-John’s grandfather, Max Born.
shrug

And you made me aware that I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
had confused parallax and aberration:
http://tinyurl.com/nje25b


The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. The following excerpt
still applies today.

“Please pick up all your **** from this thread and apologize to
Darwin,
myself yours truly, and many others. I will still give you a kick in
the butt for your barbaric attitude.

“In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity
for ANY LOW SPEED applications. This includes stellar aberration. It
is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. shrug

“Kowtow! Now, get lost, and stop whining.”

That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing
aberration without using the principle of relativity. Why did you
replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of
2008? The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor.
No wonder his is still too sore. Ahahahaha...

[Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped]


ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS
  #8  
Old January 4th 13, 01:24 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default What is or is not a paradox?

you are hiding behind a mass of equationary;
all that has to be shown, in modern terms, is that
the angular momenta of atoms must be taken onto account
for any acceleration toward c, which is the speed
-- not the velocity -- of light, actually ne'er achieved,
in no perfect vacuum.

in any case, the curvature of space was forensically adduced
by Erastosthenes, and instrumentally by Gauss
(surveying Allsace-Lorraine for the French government).

-Hide assholish text -
  #9  
Old January 4th 13, 09:13 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On 04.01.2013 00:07, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:


Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.


Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug


Antitheses to SR a


** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz


Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. shrug


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox.


My mathematic trick: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html


Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not
resist to get his butt kicked again. Let’s spank more of the little
professor’s ass. Ahahaha...

Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific
method.


Quite.
It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific
method is way beyond my mental abilities.


Only to the little professor. Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat
the essence of scientific method. There is nothing wrong about the
statement below. shrug

“Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to
validate only one of these hypotheses.”


Quite.
That's the Wubleean version all right. shrug


The exact episode is like the children’s story “Blind men and the
elephant”. Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the
Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is.
Gee! You can even take hints from children’s story books.
Ahahahaha...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant

Please do bookmark this one. So, a few months or years down the road,
we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway.
Ahahahaha...


Quite.
I am sure people will laugh at me when you present the Wubleean
version of the scientific method. shrug


The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is
an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein
Dingleberry anyway? :-)


Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t
you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and
save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it.
Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to
get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug


Your argument are as lethal as always.


You bet. shrug

For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf
thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero
at the instant when they were co-located:
http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8


On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have

delta = (delta_A – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)

Where

** B^2 = v^2 / c^2

It can easily be

Delta_A = (delta – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)


I will take you word for that it easily can be that
if you don't know what you are doing. shrug

[snip irrelevant derivation with the purpose to
divert the attention from that fact that Wublee
insisted that to set three co-located clocks to zero
is a violation of relativity.]


And you made me aware that I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
had confused parallax and aberration:
http://tinyurl.com/nje25b


The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. The following excerpt
still applies today.


Quite.
The arguments are as lethal as they were in 2008:

“Please pick up all your **** from this thread and apologize to
Darwin,
myself yours truly, and many others. I will still give you a kick in
the butt for your barbaric attitude.

“In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity
for ANY LOW SPEED applications. This includes stellar aberration. It
is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. shrug

“Kowtow! Now, get lost, and stop whining.”

That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing
aberration without using the principle of relativity.


Compute aberration without the principle of relativity? :-)
Wublee .... :-)

Why did you
replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of
2008?


The only difference between the 2008 version and the 2010 version
is that the former was written in Word, while the latter is
written in LaTex. The content is exactly the same, the changes
are purely cosmetic.

The original 2008 version:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf
The 2010 version:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

In both versions I have calculated stellar aberration both
according to the Lorentz transform and according to
the Galilean transform. The difference is unmeasurable.

Because: tan(v/c) ~= sin(v/c) ~= v/c when v/c 1

The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor.
No wonder his is still too sore. Ahahahaha...


I see that you are desperate to divert the attention
from your blunder, which was that you claimed that I
had confused stellar aberration and parallax.

You don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-)


[Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped]


You mean this?

And you also proved that even if it is experimentally
proven that the velocity of the star contributes nothing
to stellar aberration, the velocity of the star is
very much important in determining this aberration.
http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz


ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS


You really don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-)
Because it is a blunder to insist that the velocity of
the star must contribute to stellar aberration when it
is experimentally proven that it doesn't.
Isn't it?

BTW, why do you think that your whining when I remind
you of your blunders is kicking my ass? :-)

Now I will get lost.
I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again
will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders.

Until then, have nice days!

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #10  
Old January 10th 13, 07:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Mahipal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 3, 6:07*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. *This is scientific method.


Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. *Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. *Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. *This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. *shrug


Antitheses to SR a


** *Voigt transformation
** *Larmor’s transformation
** *Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz


Each one says the Aether must exist. *Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. *shrug


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox.


My mathematic trick:http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html


Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not
resist to get his butt kicked again. *Let’s spank more of the little
professor’s ass. *Ahahaha...

Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific
method.


Quite.
It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific
method is way beyond my mental abilities.


Only to the little professor. *Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat
the essence of scientific method. *There is nothing wrong about the
statement below. *shrug

“Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to
validate only one of these hypotheses.”


KW, you can never teach the willfully blind to see a rainbow.

The exact episode is like the children’s story “Blind men and the
elephant”. *Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the
Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is.
Gee! *You can even take hints from children’s story books.
Ahahahaha...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant

Please do bookmark this one. *So, a few months or years down the road,
we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway.
Ahahahaha...

The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is
an illiterate in science. *What do you expect from an Einstein
Dingleberry anyway? *:-)


Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. *Why don’t
you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? *Bookmark it, and
save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. *Come on, paul. *Do it..
Oh, still sore, eh? *:-) *Looking for every possible opportunities to
get back at Koobee Wublee? *shrug


Your argument are as lethal as always.


You bet. *shrug


Only an idiot would write what Paul did.

For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf
thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero
at the instant when they were co-located:
http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8


On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have

delta = (delta_A – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)


That's my favorite equation of all time! Just love it.

Where

** *B^2 = v^2 / c^2

It can easily be

Delta_A = (delta – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)

The bottom line is the equation describing the segment of Minkowski
spacetime using your labeling system:

** *c^2 dt_AC^2 – ds_AC^2 = c^2 dt_BC^2 – ds_BC^2

Where

** *ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

The equation can be written as follows.

** *dt_AC^2 (1 – B_AC^2) = dt_BC^2 (1 – B_BC^2)

Where

** *B_AC c = Speed of C as observed by A
** *B_BC c = Speed of C as observed by B

From A’s point of view trying to compare the rate of time flows with
C, B and C are the same. *Thus, the equation above simplifies into the
following.

** dt_AB^2 (1 – B_AB^2) = dt_BB^2 (1 – B_BB^2) = dt_BB^2

Where

** *B_AB c = Speed of B as observed by A
** *B_BB c = 0

On the other hand, from C’s pint of view observing A, B and A are the
same. *Thus, the spacetime equation has to be interpreted differently
as the following.

** dt_AA^2 (1 – B_AA^2) = dt_BA^2 (1 – B_BA^2) = dt_AA^2

Where

** *B_AA c = 0
** *B_BA c = Speed of A as observed by B

The only time when there is no paradox is when (B_AB = B_BA = 0).
This is what the Lorentz symmetry is all about such that there is no
special treatment on the one that is moving, and the little professor
from Norway fails miserably on this one. *SPANK *SPANK *SPANK

It is time for paul to join another paul aka sylvia, absolute dick,
little bitch, etc. better known as PD for another divine vision to
resolve the paradox --- projection of proper time. *Tom used to
believe in that crap, but he is now back to the first divine vision
promoted by promoted by Olivia Newton-John’s grandfather, Max Born.
shrug


Nice connection! ONJ and Born. "Have you never been mellow, have you
never tried, to find the comfort, from inside..." try Dan Singh with
QT's VV of Travolta fame. Sorry, I had one of those greasy free
thought moments.

Actually KW, I was searching for your recent Zardoz reference, and
instead, found beautiful Born Olivia. Still perusing threads...

And you made me aware that I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
had confused parallax and aberration:
http://tinyurl.com/nje25b


The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. *The following excerpt
still applies today.

“Please pick up all your **** from this thread and apologize to
Darwin,
myself yours truly, and many others. *I will still give you a kick in
the butt for your barbaric attitude.

“In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity
for ANY LOW SPEED applications. *This includes stellar aberration. *It
is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. *shrug

“Kowtow! *Now, get lost, and stop whining.”

That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing
aberration without using the principle of relativity. *Why did you
replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of
2008? *The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor.
No wonder his is still too sore. *Ahahahaha...

[Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped]


ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS


KW... never be intimidated by they-the-them ganging up on you.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive
you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"
 




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
What is or is not a paradox? Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 9 January 2nd 13 05:41 PM
The Cow Paradox Keith Wood SETI 5 December 30th 06 01:10 AM
what if paradox kjakja Misc 130 December 12th 04 05:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.