TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Nov 7, 2:13 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 03.11.2010 08:45, Koobee Wublee wrote:

For the prerequisite understanding, there are several camps of thought
on resolving the twins paradox. Each one is contradictory of the
others. Some self-styled physicists endorse one over the others, and
some Einstein Dingleberries suck up to a particular one than the
others. In fact all these so-called resolutions are bull****.
shrug

Claiming that acceleration resolves the twins paradox was endorsed by
your idol Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Very
soon, most self-styled physicists saw a fatal issue with that and
started to divorce themselves away from that. The favored scripture
among the self-styled physicists nowadays is spacetime where
everything ages in spacetime rather than time. Of course, it takes
another religion-inclined discipline to accept that bull****.shrug

So, what the little professor from Trondheim is doing to resolve the
twins paradox is actually not supported by many self-styled
physicists. These self-styled physicists know their champion is full
of ****. They in turn decide to allow the kind of the little
professor from Trondheim to wave more mathemagics in hoping to prolong
the religion of SR and GR in which their livelihoods are so much
dependent on.shrug

In another words, lack of comments from self-styled physicists on the
little professor’s childish java applet does not mean they endorse
this nonsense.shrug So, don t get over your head with your
childish play on these java applets. shrug

There is no dispute about the twin 'paradox' amongst physicist.
My animation is strictly according to the Lorentz transform,
and no professional physicist will dispute that.

You are correct. There are no disputes, but there ought to be. That
is exactly what yours truly has addressed. Again, after all, each of
these so-called resolutions is not really in agreement with the
others. shrug

After more than 100 years, the self-styled physicists have thought
about it. Any true scientists would have abandoned SR long ago, but
the self-styled physicists tried to proliferate the nonsense by
championing that spacetime is the variable of aging instead of local
time. Well, it helps when they hypnotize themselves in believing
spacetime being proper time which translates to local time. This is
not supported by the very mathematics. shrug

Your Java applets actually violated the very essence of SR. That is
the very principle of relativity as yours truly has tried to explain
to you. PD saw a checkmate in the going. He started to rant about
the nonsense in the misunderstanding in the variables involved. I see
that you have no objections to the variables I have pointed out and
presented. Is that correct? If not, it follows that your mistake
lies in the application of ignoring the principle of relativity.
shrug

Again, the animation merely reflects more shallow understanding of the
programmer.shrug

Funny then, that the simulation based on the Schwarzschild
metric produces the same numbers as nature.
(Experimentally verified for the GPS and gravity probe A,
which is the red rocket in the default scenario.)

Has it ever occurred to you that the ground sees a time dilation in
the satellites due to SR because the satellites are moving, but the
satellites sees no time dilation to the ground where the ground is
moving with respect to a satellite. GR solves this problem through a
very preferred frame of reference that is the center of the earth.
This is indeed no-no under SR. Oh, the self-styled physicists will
come up with more bull**** by tossing out inertial frames where non-
inertial frames have mathemagical values in which all math will work
out to utopian correctness. Yearh, right! shrug

You have applied the Lorentz transform to accelerated frames. You
should now know the accelerated frames, which are not inertial
according to self-styled physicists, are nothing special in which the
common sense of mathematics still applies. shrug

Thanks for taking days to think about this issue. See the ground
shaking? Well, Mr. Bielawski and Uncle Al before you did. shrug

On 08.11.2010 05:47, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:13 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 03.11.2010 08:45, Koobee Wublee wrote:

For the prerequisite understanding, there are several camps of thought
on resolving the twins paradox. Each one is contradictory of the
others. Some self-styled physicists endorse one over the others, and
some Einstein Dingleberries suck up to a particular one than the
others. In fact all these so-called resolutions are bull****.
shrug

Claiming that acceleration resolves the twins paradox was endorsed by
your idol Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Very
soon, most self-styled physicists saw a fatal issue with that and
started to divorce themselves away from that. The favored scripture
among the self-styled physicists nowadays is spacetime where
everything ages in spacetime rather than time. Of course, it takes
another religion-inclined discipline to accept that bull****.shrug

So, what the little professor from Trondheim is doing to resolve the
twins paradox is actually not supported by many self-styled
physicists. These self-styled physicists know their champion is full
of ****. They in turn decide to allow the kind of the little
professor from Trondheim to wave more mathemagics in hoping to prolong
the religion of SR and GR in which their livelihoods are so much
dependent on.shrug

In another words, lack of comments from self-styled physicists on the
little professor’s childish java applet does not mean they endorse
this nonsense.shrug So, don t get over your head with your
childish play on these java applets.shrug

There is no dispute about the twin 'paradox' amongst physicist.
My animation is strictly according to the Lorentz transform,
and no professional physicist will dispute that.

You are correct. There are no disputes, but there ought to be. That
is exactly what yours truly has addressed. Again, after all, each of
these so-called resolutions is not really in agreement with the
others.shrug

After more than 100 years, the self-styled physicists have thought
about it. Any true scientists would have abandoned SR long ago, but
the self-styled physicists tried to proliferate the nonsense by
championing that spacetime is the variable of aging instead of local
time. Well, it helps when they hypnotize themselves in believing
spacetime being proper time which translates to local time. This is
not supported by the very mathematics.shrug

Your Java applets actually violated the very essence of SR. That is
the very principle of relativity as yours truly has tried to explain
to you. PD saw a checkmate in the going. He started to rant about
the nonsense in the misunderstanding in the variables involved. I see
that you have no objections to the variables I have pointed out and
presented. Is that correct? If not, it follows that your mistake
lies in the application of ignoring the principle of relativity.
shrug

All your talk doesn't change the fact that the principle of relativity
is built into the Lorentz transform, and that my animation is strictly
according to the Lorentz transform:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html


http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html
Again, the animation merely reflects more shallow understanding of the
programmer.shrug

Funny then, that the simulation based on the Schwarzschild
metric produces the same numbers as nature.
(Experimentally verified for the GPS and gravity probe A,
which is the red rocket in the default scenario.)

Has it ever occurred to you that the ground sees a time dilation in
the satellites due to SR because the satellites are moving, but the
satellites sees no time dilation to the ground where the ground is
moving with respect to a satellite. GR solves this problem through a
very preferred frame of reference that is the center of the earth.
This is indeed no-no under SR. Oh, the self-styled physicists will
come up with more bull**** by tossing out inertial frames where non-
inertial frames have mathemagical values in which all math will work
out to utopian correctness. Yearh, right!shrug

You have applied the Lorentz transform to accelerated frames. You
should now know the accelerated frames, which are not inertial
according to self-styled physicists, are nothing special in which the
common sense of mathematics still applies.shrug

Thanks for taking days to think about this issue. See the ground
shaking? Well, Mr. Bielawski and Uncle Al before you did.shrug

All your talk doesn't change the fact that the simulation which
you found so silly produces results which are experimentally
proven correct in the real world.
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html

Why do you think that is, Koobee?

--
Paul

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

On Nov 8, 4:47*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:13 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:









On 03.11.2010 08:45, Koobee Wublee wrote:
For the prerequisite understanding, there are several camps of thought
on resolving the twins paradox. *Each one is contradictory of the
others. *Some self-styled physicists endorse one over the others, and
some Einstein Dingleberries suck up to a particular one than the
others. *In fact all these so-called resolutions are bull****.
shrug

Claiming that acceleration resolves the twins paradox was endorsed by
your idol Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. *Very
soon, most self-styled physicists saw a fatal issue with that and
started to divorce themselves away from that. *The favored scripture
among the self-styled physicists nowadays is spacetime where
everything ages in spacetime rather than time. *Of course, it takes
another religion-inclined discipline to accept that bull****.shrug

So, what the little professor from Trondheim is doing to resolve the
twins paradox is actually not supported by many self-styled
physicists. *These self-styled physicists know their champion is full
of ****. *They in turn decide to allow the kind of the little
professor from Trondheim to wave more mathemagics in hoping to prolong
the religion of SR and GR in which their livelihoods are so much
dependent on.shrug

In another words, lack of comments from self-styled physicists on the
little professor’s childish java applet does not mean they endorse
this nonsense.shrug *So, don t get over your head with your
childish play on these java applets. *shrug

There is no dispute about the twin 'paradox' amongst physicist.
My animation is strictly according to the Lorentz transform,
and no professional physicist will dispute that.

You are correct. *There are no disputes, but there ought to be. *That
is exactly what yours truly has addressed. *Again, after all, each of
these so-called resolutions is not really in agreement with the
others. *shrug

After more than 100 years, the self-styled physicists have thought
about it. *Any true scientists would have abandoned SR long ago, but
the self-styled physicists tried to proliferate the nonsense by
championing that spacetime is the variable of aging instead of local
time. *Well, it helps when they hypnotize themselves in believing
spacetime being proper time which translates to local time. *This is
not supported by the very mathematics. *shrug

Your Java applets actually violated the very essence of SR. *That is
the very principle of relativity as yours truly has tried to explain
to you. *PD saw a checkmate in the going. *He started to rant about
the nonsense in the misunderstanding in the variables involved. *I see
that you have no objections to the variables I have pointed out and
presented. *Is that correct? *If not, it follows that your mistake
lies in the application of ignoring the principle of relativity.
shrug

Again, the animation merely reflects more shallow understanding of the
programmer.shrug

Funny then, that the simulation based on the Schwarzschild
metric produces the same numbers as nature.
(Experimentally verified for the GPS and gravity probe A,
* which is the red rocket in the default scenario.)

Has it ever occurred to you that the ground sees a time dilation in
the satellites due to SR because the satellites are moving, but the
satellites sees no time dilation to the ground where the ground is
moving with respect to a satellite. *GR solves this problem through a
very preferred frame of reference that is the center of the earth.
This is indeed no-no under SR. *Oh, the self-styled physicists will
come up with more bull**** by tossing out inertial frames where non-
inertial frames have mathemagical values in which all math will work
out to utopian correctness. *Yearh, right! *shrug

You have applied the Lorentz transform to accelerated frames. *You
should now know the accelerated frames, which are not inertial
according to self-styled physicists, are nothing special in which the
common sense of mathematics still applies. *shrug

Thanks for taking days to think about this issue. *See the ground
shaking? *Well, Mr. Bielawski and Uncle Al before you did. *shrug

Apart from a chronic shrugging problem you appear to have,the visitors
from sci.astro.amateur should be capable of helping you out with a few
definitions and what went wrong -

"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

"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
49min. 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." Christian Huygens

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Now,you have to go through this procedure here, not forget that
physical restraint there and a dozen other things but the core system
eventually works its way out to how the progression of equal 24 hour
days substitute for steady rotation without any external reference for
that singular and independent rotation.It is a real rollercoaster ride
through the annals of astronomy,invention,adventure whereas you guys
seem happy to argue over definitions and words.

On Nov 8, 12:39 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 08.11.2010 05:47, Koobee Wublee wrote:

You are correct. There are no disputes, but there ought to be. That
is exactly what yours truly has addressed. Again, after all, each of
these so-called resolutions is not really in agreement with the
others.shrug

After more than 100 years, the self-styled physicists have thought
about it. Any true scientists would have abandoned SR long ago, but
the self-styled physicists tried to proliferate the nonsense by
championing that spacetime is the variable of aging instead of local
time. Well, it helps when they hypnotize themselves in believing
spacetime being proper time which translates to local time. This is
not supported by the very mathematics.shrug

Your Java applets actually violated the very essence of SR. That is
the very principle of relativity as yours truly has tried to explain
to you. PD saw a checkmate in the going. He started to rant about
the nonsense in the misunderstanding in the variables involved. I see
that you have no objections to the variables I have pointed out and
presented. Is that correct? If not, it follows that your mistake
lies in the application of ignoring the principle of relativity.
shrug

... blah blah blah...

Has it ever occurred to you that the ground sees a time dilation in
the satellites due to SR because the satellites are moving, but the
satellites sees no time dilation to the ground where the ground is
moving with respect to a satellite. GR solves this problem through a
very preferred frame of reference that is the center of the earth.
This is indeed no-no under SR. Oh, the self-styled physicists will
come up with more bull**** by tossing out inertial frames where non-
inertial frames have mathemagical values in which all math will work
out to utopian correctness. Yearh, right!shrug

You have applied the Lorentz transform to accelerated frames. You
should now know the accelerated frames, which are not inertial
according to self-styled physicists, are nothing special in which the
common sense of mathematics still applies.shrug

Thanks for taking days to think about this issue. See the ground
shaking? Well, Mr. Bielawski and Uncle Al before you did.shrug

More ... blah blah blah...

Why do you think that is, Koobee?

Your animation only is valid in your own silly mind and no more. So,
go on and disappear in your world of animation. In the meantime,
yours truly will continue to reside in the world of reality. Yours
truly will leave you now to enjoy your life in your own world of
animated fantasy. That is what yours truly thinks since you've
asked. shrug

On 09.11.2010 06:29, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:39 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 08.11.2010 05:47, Koobee Wublee wrote:

You are correct. There are no disputes, but there ought to be. That
is exactly what yours truly has addressed. Again, after all, each of
these so-called resolutions is not really in agreement with the
others.shrug

After more than 100 years, the self-styled physicists have thought
about it. Any true scientists would have abandoned SR long ago, but
the self-styled physicists tried to proliferate the nonsense by
championing that spacetime is the variable of aging instead of local
time. Well, it helps when they hypnotize themselves in believing
spacetime being proper time which translates to local time. This is
not supported by the very mathematics.shrug

Your Java applets actually violated the very essence of SR. That is
the very principle of relativity as yours truly has tried to explain
to you. PD saw a checkmate in the going. He started to rant about
the nonsense in the misunderstanding in the variables involved. I see
that you have no objections to the variables I have pointed out and
presented. Is that correct? If not, it follows that your mistake
lies in the application of ignoring the principle of relativity.
shrug

... blah blah blah...

Has it ever occurred to you that the ground sees a time dilation in
the satellites due to SR because the satellites are moving, but the
satellites sees no time dilation to the ground where the ground is
moving with respect to a satellite. GR solves this problem through a
very preferred frame of reference that is the center of the earth.
This is indeed no-no under SR. Oh, the self-styled physicists will
come up with more bull**** by tossing out inertial frames where non-
inertial frames have mathemagical values in which all math will work
out to utopian correctness. Yearh, right!shrug

You have applied the Lorentz transform to accelerated frames. You
should now know the accelerated frames, which are not inertial
according to self-styled physicists, are nothing special in which the
common sense of mathematics still applies.shrug

Thanks for taking days to think about this issue. See the ground
shaking? Well, Mr. Bielawski and Uncle Al before you did.shrug

More ... blah blah blah...

Snipping the questions you can't answer, Koobee? :-)

Why do you think that is, Koobee?

Your animation only is valid in your own silly mind and no more.

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

Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that that
the simulation which you find so silly produces results
which are experimentally proven correct in the real world.

Why do you think that is, Koobee?


--
Paul

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

Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that that
the simulation which you find so silly produces results
which are experimentally proven correct in the real world.

Why do you think that is, Koobee?


Koobee "believes in" Relativity. Despite frequent requests, he has never
identified a single experimental prediction of Relativity which he believes
to be untrue.

Koobee's problem is with Einstein, I'm not sure what it is.

On Nov 9, 12:52 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 09.11.2010 06:29, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Snipping the questions you can't answer, Koobee? :-)

What questions? shrug

Your animation only is valid in your own silly mind and no more.

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

Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that that
the simulation which you find so silly produces results
which are experimentally proven correct in the real world.

These remain animations. Your animations do not reflect any real
world observations. shrug

Why do you think that is, Koobee?

Since you asked, that is because the little professor from Trondheim
BELIEVES in the nonsense of SR and GR. shrug

Yours truly really don’t care about your silly animations. Does
anybody? Oh, only Einstein Dingleberries. shrug

On 09.11.2010 18:13, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 9, 12:52 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 09.11.2010 06:29, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Snipping the questions you can't answer, Koobee? :-)

What questions?shrug

Your animation only is valid in your own silly mind and no more.

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

Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that that
the simulation which you find so silly produces results
which are experimentally proven correct in the real world.

These remain animations. Your animations do not reflect any real
world observations.shrug

Sure they do.
The red rocket in the default scenario is equivalent to
gravity probe A. If you pause it at the top of its path
at ~10000 km, you will see that the relative rate difference
is 4.256E-10, which is pretty close to what was measured
in the actual experiment.
http://tinyurl.com/2d5m5gj
page 16

And if you choose the scenario: "Geostationary + GPS",
you will see that the relative rate difference for
the GPS satellite (red)is 4.464E-10, which is in accordance
with the experimental evidence.

Why do you think that is, Koobee?

Since you asked, that is because the little professor from Trondheim
BELIEVES in the nonsense of SR and GR.shrug

My animation shows what GR predicts.
So the predictions of GR are in accordance with
the experimental evidence because I believe it? :-)

Wow, what power I have!
I can command nature to behave according to my belief!


Yours truly really don’t care about your silly animations. Does
anybody? Oh, only Einstein Dingleberries.shrug

I will ask you again, Koobee.
It is a fact that that the simulation which you find so
silly produces results which are experimentally proven
correct in the real world.
Why do you think that is?

Will you repeat your claim that it is because nature
will behave according to my beliefs? :-)


--
Paul

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

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
....
I'm waiting for you to admit your blunder. We can't move on until
you do, so either it's case closed and you are a crank, or you can
be educated. I've no wish to learn Norwegian arithmetic where
'minus' is 'times'.
In your face, Tusseladd: the Mach number is the speed of the plane relative
to the speed of AIR.

"Peter Webb"
"in truth... to believe to be incorrect" ... barked & farted again.