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.

 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

#1
January 7th 13, 06:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
 Koobee Wublee external usenet poster Posts: 815

On Jan 7, 10:02 am, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:24 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

It is perfectly symmetrical. Note that SR does not seek to find who
actually fired the rocket. Between the two spaceships A and B, A can
accelerate or B can accelerate or both can accelerate. SR deals with
uniform motion after acceleration.

that's not so.

That was what PD said years ago. Stupid PD, an ex-professor of
physics at a university in Texas. shrug

if both accelerate, there is no time difference.

After both have done their acceleration, they continue to move away
from each other. What is their relative speed? Does the Lorentz
transform not say time dilation? At this moment, who is actually
moving, and who is not? If time dilation is building up, how does it
evaporate? shrug

the fact that one accelerates and the other doesn't is the reason there
is a difference.

Actually not according to the Lorentz transform. You cannot make up
your own laws of physics. You are no god. shrug

sr accounts for the difference in that case. if you
thought that sr just ignores acceleration then you thought wrong and the
twin example was designed to elicit that mistake.

In this case, both accelerate with a coasting period to allow for
mutual time dilation building up. Shouldn’t the magic effect of
acceleration cancel out? If not, why not? Just what part of this
simple scenario do you not understand, PD? shrug

Let’s recap the mathemagic trick Einstein dingleberries like to pitch
when one accelerates and the other does not.

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – B^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – B^2)

Where

** B c = Relative speed between 1 and 2

When both accelerate, well they will probably say the following.

** dt1 = dt2

And

** dt2 = dt1

It is indeed interesting what type of mathemagic trick they are going
to pull out when both 1 and 2 are coasting away or towards each
other. shrug

For reference, the Lorentz transform always says the following
regardless who is accelerating or no:

** dt1 = dt2 sqrt(1 – B^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – B^2)

The only time when there is no contradiction is when (B^2 = 0).
shrug

#2
January 7th 13, 08:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
 Koobee Wublee external usenet poster Posts: 815

On Jan 7, 12:31 pm, Absolutely Vertical
wrote:
On 1/7/2013 12:43 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

That was what PD said years ago. Stupid PD, an ex-professor of
physics at a university in Texas. shrug

i would imagine a lot of people would say it, since it's not so.
if someone tells you that the earth is not flat, i expect you to remark
that someone else on usenet said so too.

Flat earth was exactly what ignorant PD had argued before. For your
information, PD, since the age of maritime sailing about 3 to 4
thousands of years ago, people always knew the earth was spherical,
and that was even the case during the darkest of the Dark Age.
Columbus did not try to convince his financier that the earth was
spherical. He was trying to convince his backers that the earth was
not as big as what they believe in. In fact, Columbus was wrong. He

After both have done their acceleration, they continue to move away
from each other. What is their relative speed? Does the Lorentz
transform not say time dilation? At this moment, who is actually
moving, and who is not? If time dilation is building up, how does it
evaporate? shrug

in the turnaround of one of them.

How? Say 100 years of time dilation all gone in one turn around?

Actually not according to the Lorentz transform. You cannot make up
your own laws of physics. You are no god. shrug

the lorentz transform as you're using it doesn't deal with the
turnaround. you need to use the version that deals with the acceleration
of the turnaround.

Believing yourself to be a god does not make you a god, PD. shrug

Just how many versions of the Lorentz transform are there? shrug

In this case, both accelerate with a coasting period to allow for
mutual time dilation building up. Shouldn’t the magic effect of
acceleration cancel out?

in the case where both twins accelerate, then there is no asymmetry.
while there is a change that happens during the acceleration, it's the
same for both, so when they meet again, their clocks show the same time.

Where is the math that supports your faulty claim? shrug

yes, the turnaround undoes the time dilation of the coasting period. for
both observers in the symmetric case, the other's clock leaps forward to
be ahead of the other's clock. if this comes as a shock it's because
you've never looked at the generalization of the lorentz transform in an
accelerated frame.

And what exactly is this generalization of the Lorentz transform in
the accelerated frame? shrug

If not, why not? Just what part of this
simple scenario do you not understand, PD? shrug

#3
January 8th 13, 07:05 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
 Koobee Wublee external usenet poster Posts: 815

On Jan 7, 2:16 pm, PD wrote:
On 1/7/2013 2:51 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Flat earth was exactly what ignorant PD had argued before.

as predicted

PD is a dumb fvck. Since Venereal is PD, what does that have to say

who? you mean sylvia?

No, PD. Koobee Wublee means PD. shrug

since the age of maritime sailing about 3 to 4
thousands of years ago, people always knew the earth was spherical,
and that was even the case during the darkest of the Dark Age.
Columbus did not try to convince his financier that the earth was
spherical. He was trying to convince his backers that the earth was
not as big as what they believe in. In fact, Columbus was wrong. He

How? Say 100 years of time dilation all gone in one turn around?

absolutely.

Hand-waving = reasoning. shrug

Believing yourself to be a god does not make you a god, PD. shrug

what?
there's no godliness needed here. only stuff you've not acquainted
yourself with. that's as common as mud.

PD is the only one who thinks he can make everything happen by hand-
waving. shrug

Just how many versions of the Lorentz transform are there? shrug

there's one between inertial reference frames. there's another one for
dealing with accelerating frames. does this small common fact surprise you?

Specifically, what are they? If you cannot write down these two
different Lorentz transforms, you are a fvcking liar, and there is no
need for Koobee Wublee to waste His valuable time on the ilk such as
this deranged personality of PD. Just how many different
personalities does PD have? Is this a game to PD? shrug

Where is the math that supports your faulty claim? shrug

in the description of transformations from or to an accelerated frame.
try googling 'lorentz transform accelerated frame'. you'll only need the
first half dozen of the 250k results

No, there are 250k interpretations which are all different with
varying degrees of bull****. Koobee Wublee needs to know which
version PD believes in to allow for the necessary demystification
process. shrug

And what exactly is this generalization of the Lorentz transform in
the accelerated frame? shrug

you like to follow math. go to where the math is laid out already. do
you need me to tie your shoes for you, or can you use the internet?

Where is the math? PD has failed to deliver his faulty claim once
again. shrug
#4
January 8th 13, 06:46 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
 1treePetrifiedForestLane external usenet poster Posts: 974

with quaternions, "the math" is just ordinary space,
with the "real, scalar" part being the t parameter;
no silly Minkowskian visionarying, required ... unless
you *want* to reduce the number of spatial dimensions,
in *order* to spatialize time in a graphical format.

anyonre can also see, that
the angular momenta of atoms are inertial components .,.
in the God-am math; thank you.

Where is the math?

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution. Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 24 January 8th 13 06:51 AM Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution. Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 3 January 6th 13 09:47 AM The twin paradox Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 22 May 11th 12 02:35 AM 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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 AM.