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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...  On 30.10.2010 23:08, Androcles wrote:   Don't you mean strictly according to the Andersen transform?   "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 = (tauxi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2)  x = (xi  v*tau)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2)  or:  tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2)  xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2)"  Bigot Andersen, Tusseladd   You have repeated this trivial statement of mine several  times, and I always wondered why.   But NOW I have got the explanation:   Tadaaa:   A = (BC) / D, so OBVIOUSLY  B = (A+C) / D and it can't possibly be  B = AD+C as you have told me a LOT of times.   Your humping twin will have his head up his arse.   Hilarius, no? :)   http://tinyurl.com/2uygj4t     Paul, the Tusseladd Hilarious yes, Tusseladd, as you have told me a LOT of times. 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 tBtA = t'AtB " Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10 lightyears 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) 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. Androcles, the trivial tusseladdbeater. 
Ads 
#2




TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
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 tBtA = t'AtB " Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10 lightyears 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 tusseladdbeater. Quite. You swing a lot, but never hits. :)  Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ 
#3




TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
"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 tBtA =  t'AtB "   Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10 lightyears  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/301305Nature.pdf Bailey, Borer et. al: tau = tau0 / [(1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] = gamma.tau0 Einstein: tau = t * [(1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] = http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif Tusseladd: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) Einstein: tau = (txv/c^2)/sqrt(1v^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 peerreview. That this phenomenon really happens in the real world is proven by the peers of an idiot.  Androcles, the trivial tusseladdbeater.   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 = (tauxi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) x = (xi  v*tau)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) or: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1v^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 tusseladdbeater. 
#4




TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 1, 9:52*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Quite. You swing a lot, but never hits. :) Mathematicians seemingly can't,are not capable of or do not want to put Isaac's idiosyncratic version on the averaging process for the 24 hour day in context insofar as what must appear to you as definitions of two separate 'time' things is simply a standard procedure separating the progression of unequal days as referenced to natural noon from the steady progression of 24 hour days which make up the steady progression of days in the calendar system  "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton The detailed and accurate version is Huygens,no absolute/relative definitions but a simple correspondence that people in sci.astro.amateur must know backwards and forwards by now  "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy." Huygens http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kortE.html It is something to watch people try to discuss nothing for over 100 years and as long as relativity has been around,as far as Newton goes,he did what he needed to do to project the idea that he understood astronomical procedures and methods while putting his readers in a state of unease by loading his 'definition' with things like 'vulgar time'.What looks trivial to mathematicians is fundamental to astronomers so that the entire episode of relativity is more or less a statement about the standard of astronomy rather than any perceived validity to that exotic indulgence. 
#5




TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
How can you average something if you can't measure it?
Don't you need something like a pendulum clock  or, as both Newton and Ptolemy did, the motions of the heavenly bodies  to establish a standard of uniform time first, before you could compare the time indicated by a sundial against it? John Savard 
#6




TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
"Quadibloc" wrote in message ...  How can you average something if you can't measure it? Your hero Einstein did. 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(cv))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(cv)) http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif Have you got a problem with that, you snipping idiot? 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  111  November 25th 10 12:41 PM 
2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  16  January 8th 09 05:39 PM 
A twin paradox simulation  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  0  May 29th 08 02:21 PM 
THE SECRET OF THE TWIN PARADOX  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  0  November 9th 07 03:48 PM 
The twin paradox revisited  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  6  July 11th 07 01:47 AM 