|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
Spine less Brian Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at
netscape.net is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity, who asked: ||||Brian wrote:||| "do I have to kiss the dingleberries?" Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head", rasterspace", "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil in "1treePetrifiedForestLane" & is no longer able to realize what's going on and so: ||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?" ||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards" ||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the ||| Brian says: patent office. ||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv ||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes ||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS. ||||Brian says: Your format is extremely tiresome; ||||Brian says: it's no longer worth replying to such ||||Brian says: dingbats as yourself, Poraatt, ||||Brian says: Kobbee-doo, Neinstein. ||||Brian says: have a nice _____, all of you. hanson wrote: Then DO what you preach, Brian. Have some backbone & STOP responding to my posts. I told you that for the *** 12th time*** now. "have a nice ___," too, Brian, you "God-am ____, fool" ahahahaha.. ahahahanson |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
if you are going to misrepresent a dead guy,
you should at least post a handwritten caricature. all of you Einsteinmaniacs are essentially floundred in those two "problems" that I mention, which are merely a couple of literary conventions in the "field" of physics education. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
Mental patient "Rob Greason"
is the spineless Brian Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at netscape.net and is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity, who asked: ||||Brian wrote:||| "do I have to kiss the dingleberries?" Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head", "rasterspace", "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil in "1treePetrifiedForestLane" showing now as "Rob Greason" & is no longer able to realize what's going on and so: ||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?" ||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards" ||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the ||| Brian says: patent office. ||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv ||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes ||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS. and now buzzwording as ever, but never capable of producing a simple equation or a numerical solution Brian "Rubs Grease on" and declares himself as a being a " caricature". AHAHAHA... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to --- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
you don't dispute any thing; nice.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On Jul 19, 3:23 pm, PD wrote:
The transformation equations tell you, in the case of a common origin at a particular location and a particular time between two coordinate systems, what the relationship is between the *current* time and space coordinates (according to a local and stationary clock and ruler system) in one reference frame and the *current* time and space coordinates (according to a local and stationary clock and ruler system) in another reference system, for any selected event. You can repeat that process for another selected event. This is a myth and absolutely not true. The Lorentz, the Voigt, and the Galilean transforms all describe the relationship between how one observer observes the observed and how another observer observes the same observed. These observations do not have to be done at the global level (sharing the same common origin). They only apply to local level, (dx = dx v dt) instead of (x = x v t). srgu The transformation equations do NOT "project" out in space or time to something not local. Once again, these transforms involve three parties --- two observers observing the same observed. These transforms all describe how the observations of these two observers are related in observing the same observed. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
it isn't a difficult problem in terms of perspective;
if you, et us say a fourth observer, get far-enough away from the other three observers/observees, then you can see the relative merits ... well, especially if they are "going" in a plane that is normal to your line of sight, otherwise use dopplergangers. Once again, these transforms involve three parties --- two observers observing the same observed. *These transforms all describe how the observations of these two observers are related in observing the same observed. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
PD wrote:
On 7/20/2011 11:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: The transformation equations tell you, in the case of a common origin at a particular location and a particular time between two coordinate systems, what the relationship is between the *current* time and space coordinates (according to a local and stationary clock and ruler system) in one reference frame and the *current* time and space coordinates (according to a local and stationary clock and ruler system) in another reference system, for any selected event. You can repeat that process for another selected event. This is a myth and absolutely not true. I didn't say the Lorentz transform was the only transform that does this. I said that the Lorentz transform does the things described, which it does. One CAN do a Lorentz transformation where there is an offset between origins at some given time, but this simply introduces constants, and so adds nothing. Otherwise, what you say below is fine. The Lorentz, the Voigt, and the Galilean transforms all describe the relationship between how one observer observes the observed and how another observer observes the same observed. These observations do not have to be done at the global level (sharing the same common origin). They only apply to local level, (dx = dx v dt) instead of (x = x v t).srgu Once again, these transforms involve three parties --- two observers observing the same observed. These transforms all describe how the observations of these two observers are related in observing the same observed. You still have not said anything that makes sense. Which version of the Lorentz transform below has a better chance of representing reality? **** Global Version where it is a pure coordinate transform of linear rectangular coordinate system ** t = (t v x / c^2) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** x = (x v t) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** y = y ** z = z Or **** Geometry Transform where it transforms a point in spacetime to another (there is no such offset in this version) ** dt = (dt v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** dx = (dx v dt) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** dy = dy ** dz = dz |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
not sure what you mean; I believe that it was Dirac,
who showed the relativistic properties of matter "at rest, even." **** *Global Version where it is a pure coordinate transform of linear rectangular coordinate system **** *Geometry Transform where it transforms a point in spacetime to another (there is no such offset in this version) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On Jul 20, 2:45 pm, PD wrote:
On 7/20/2011 2:21 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: You still have not said anything that makes sense. Which version of the Lorentz transform below has a better chance of representing reality? **** Global Version where it is a pure coordinate transform of linear rectangular coordinate system ** t = (t v x / c^2) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** x = (x v t) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** y = y ** z = z Note there is no constant offset in the above. Or **** Geometry Transform where it transforms a point in spacetime to another (there is no such offset in this version) ** dt = (dt v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** dx = (dx v dt) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** dy = dy ** dz = dz Do you not know these two transforms presented above represent very different meanings? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
the "transform" to motion alone the x-axis is supposed
to be done "without loss of generality," although it represents a significant loss to orienteering, if you *never* do it "in general position" ... Kama Sutra #777 (the missionary position). ** *t = (t v x / c^2) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** *x = (x v t) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** *y = y ** *z = z ** *dt = (dt v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** *dx = (dx v dt) / sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) ** *dy = dy ** *dz = dz Do you not know these two transforms presented above represent very different meanings? |
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 |
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? | Androcles[_33_] | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | November 2nd 10 04:12 PM |
2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 16 | January 8th 09 05:39 PM |
The twin paradox revisited | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | July 10th 07 08:19 PM |
Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. | Der alte Hexenmeister | Astronomy Misc | 40 | January 12th 06 02:00 AM |