| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Der alte Hexenmeister" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2006 10:56:29 AM |
| Object: |
Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
Der alte Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 05:40:59 PM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister Scheisskopf:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
How can you possibly be so stupid seven days a week? Practice or just
natural talent?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 07:00:53 PM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
It is *you* who is a fraud.
You pontificate about physics yet you know almost nothing about it.
I've been asking you for months to answer two simple questions and you
cannot do it:
1. Write the Lagrangian for a particle near the surface of the Earth.
You tried to answer it once by sending me a picture of... the Earth's
Lagrange points. (I'm not making this up.)
2. Calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex
exponential). It's a 2-dim. surface sitting inside the 4-dim. Euclidean
space. General relativity which you keep trashing ever so confidently
deals with curvatures of 4-dim. Minkowskian spaces, so my 2-dim.
surface question should be a very easy problem for you.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 07:11:28 PM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136595653.127873.124060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
It is *you* who is a fraud.
*****, *****.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
11 Jan 2006 04:05:25 PM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136595653.127873.124060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
It is *you* who is a fraud.
*****, *****.
That's not the correct answer.
So you don't know the stuff you write about at all. Wouldn't it be
simply _more fun_ for you to post to groups devoted to subjects you
enjoy AND are reasonably familiar with?
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
07 Jan 2006 04:53:23 AM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136595653.127873.124060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
It is *you* who is a fraud.
You pontificate about physics yet you know almost nothing about it.
I've been asking you for months to answer two simple questions and you
cannot do it:
1. Write the Lagrangian for a particle near the surface of the Earth.
You tried to answer it once by sending me a picture of... the Earth's
Lagrange points. (I'm not making this up.)
Indeed you aren't:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Lagrangian.html
That was a good one :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
08 Jan 2006 04:35:46 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136595653.127873.124060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
It is *you* who is a fraud.
You pontificate about physics yet you know almost nothing about it.
I've been asking you for months to answer two simple questions and you
cannot do it:
1. Write the Lagrangian for a particle near the surface of the Earth.
You tried to answer it once by sending me a picture of... the Earth's
Lagrange points. (I'm not making this up.)
Indeed you aren't:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Lagrangian.html
That was a good one :-)
Dirk Vdm
THE DAY AFTER
(Dirt van der merde learned the swquare root at night school and he
gave out a lesson to the public. hahahahaha)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=dirk+square+root&rnum=2#28e1c228c606611b
idiot
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 11:10:55 AM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
Everything is not symmetrical. Oh wait ... I know: Stella's observation
of physics is garbage or Terry's is garbage, or it's all a confidence
trick.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
And you wasted a lot of time creating a pretty jpeg that has no bearing
on reality, you big goof you.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 11:46:59 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136567455.427093.46920@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a
lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
Everything is not symmetrical. Oh wait ... I know: Stella's observation
of physics is garbage or Terry's is garbage, or it's all a confidence
trick.
*****, Phuckwit Duck, the acceleration is indicated in the diagram,
a smooth curve of change of position as a function of time.
Stella moved in the z-axis, which is up, zeta = z. -- Einstein.
There is no time dilation in z.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Phuckwit Duck, you are an incompetent
fraud.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
And you wasted a lot of time creating a pretty jpeg that has no bearing
on reality, you big goof you.
PD
What is sauce for the goose tastes good with the gander, Phuckwit Duck.
Learn to reason instead of making stupid remarks.
And then *****, you are an incompetent fraud.
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 11:55:03 AM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136567455.427093.46920@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a
lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
Everything is not symmetrical. Oh wait ... I know: Stella's observation
of physics is garbage or Terry's is garbage, or it's all a confidence
trick.
*****, Phuckwit Duck, the acceleration is indicated in the diagram,
a smooth curve of change of position as a function of time.
And somehow you lost track of that information when you asserted that
the two frames, and the physics in them, are symmetrical. You also have
the same acceleration as a smooth curve in Terry's position as a
function of time. Except he doesn't observe an acceleration. That just
*might* indicate a problem, you big goof you.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
07 Jan 2006 03:36:55 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136570103.490656.180960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136567455.427093.46920@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see
Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a
lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
Everything is not symmetrical. Oh wait ... I know: Stella's observation
of physics is garbage or Terry's is garbage, or it's all a confidence
trick.
*****, Phuckwit Duck, the acceleration is indicated in the diagram,
a smooth curve of change of position as a function of time.
And somehow you lost track of that information when you asserted that
the two frames, and the physics in them, are symmetrical. You also have
the same acceleration as a smooth curve in Terry's position as a
function of time. Except he doesn't observe an acceleration. That just
*might* indicate a problem, you big goof you.
PD
Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
This will demoralise you even further, Phuckwit Duck.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the
"students" will read or attempt to learn from, so it's all out war.
You are an incompetent, useless tord, Phuckwit Duck, but
you'll only be collateral damage, nobody really gives a hoot about you
even though you try desperately to poke your beak in everywhere.
Go and quack with Seto, that silly goose will honk back at you.
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
07 Jan 2006 04:34:50 AM |
|
|
"Der alte Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message news:XYLvf.93545$vl2.59191@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136570103.490656.180960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136567455.427093.46920@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see
Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a
lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
Everything is not symmetrical. Oh wait ... I know: Stella's observation
of physics is garbage or Terry's is garbage, or it's all a confidence
trick.
*****, Phuckwit Duck, the acceleration is indicated in the diagram,
a smooth curve of change of position as a function of time.
And somehow you lost track of that information when you asserted that
the two frames, and the physics in them, are symmetrical. You also have
the same acceleration as a smooth curve in Terry's position as a
function of time. Except he doesn't observe an acceleration. That just
*might* indicate a problem, you big goof you.
PD
Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
High hopes and elementary physicis:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/KineticEnergy.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Component.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SoundSource.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PureNonsense.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Chuckle2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreEM.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sound.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Magnetic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Coulomb.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoEnergy.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MakeFool.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html
High hopes and geometry
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FullyAware.html
High hopes and transformations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroTransform.html
High hopes and calculations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FALSE.html
High hopes and groups:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroGroups.html
High hopes and logs:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
High hopes and vectors:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
High hopes and limits:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Limit.html
High hopes and equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
High hopes and square roots:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodTeachers.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
High hopes and exclusive ors:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
High hopes and partial differential equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 05:17:20 PM |
|
|
Was kann man sagen? Scheisse? oder Du bist der Beste? Vielleicht...
Marcel Luttgens
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 05:34:44 PM |
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1136589440.564852.82500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Was kann man sagen? Scheisse? oder Du bist der Beste? Vielleicht...
Marcel Luttgens
Danke, guter Herr.
Hexenmeister.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 05:52:49 PM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1136589440.564852.82500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Was kann man sagen? Scheisse? oder Du bist der Beste? Vielleicht...
Marcel Luttgens
Danke, guter Herr.
Hexenmeister.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
Dass du mich liebst, das weiss Ich! Auf deine Liebe, u.s.w.
:-) Marcel Luttgens
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
07 Jan 2006 04:40:45 AM |
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1136591569.807672.323080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1136589440.564852.82500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Was kann man sagen? Scheisse? oder Du bist der Beste? Vielleicht...
Marcel Luttgens
Danke, guter Herr.
Hexenmeister.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
Dass du mich liebst, das weiss Ich! Auf deine Liebe, u.s.w.
Put "twin Paradox" in the subject of a message and the worms
suddenly come crawling out of their cesspools:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlainlyWrong.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Indulging.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LuttgensComment.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrackpotAccept.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TrueCrackpots.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MuchSimpler.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeCrap.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoronLikeMe.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LuttRel.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidLie.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyWrong.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedV.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OnlyGalilean.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ArmsGrow.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRSymbols.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CorrectRelations.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Forget.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRLuttgens.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Lybanon" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 11:52:55 AM |
|
|
in article n2yvf.92898$vl2.44407@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk, Der alte
Hexenmeister at wrote on 1/6/06 11:46 AM:
Get out of physics and mathematics, Phuckwit Duck, you are an incompetent
fraud.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
And you wasted a lot of time creating a pretty jpeg that has no bearing
on reality, you big goof you.
PD
What is sauce for the goose tastes good with the gander, Phuckwit Duck.
Learn to reason instead of making stupid remarks.
And then *****, you are an incompetent fraud.
Hexenmeister.
If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 12:23:35 PM |
|
|
"Matthew Lybanon" <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BFE40A94.16464%lybanon@earthlink.net...
in article n2yvf.92898$vl2.44407@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk, Der alte
Hexenmeister at wrote on 1/6/06 11:46 AM:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a
lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
Everything is not symmetrical. Oh wait ... I know: Stella's observation
of physics is garbage or Terry's is garbage, or it's all a confidence
trick.
*****, Phuckwit Duck, the acceleration is indicated in the diagram,
a smooth curve of change of position as a function of time.
Stella moved in the z-axis, which is up, zeta = z. -- Einstein.
There is no time dilation in z.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Phuckwit Duck, you are an incompetent
fraud.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
And you wasted a lot of time creating a pretty jpeg that has no bearing
on reality, you big goof you.
PD
What is sauce for the goose tastes good with the gander, Phuckwit Duck.
Learn to reason instead of making stupid remarks.
And then *****, you are an incompetent fraud.
Hexenmeister.
But then Matthew Lybanon came along ansd snipped most of it,
so I snipped all if his.
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
11 Jan 2006 09:17:13 AM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Stella moved in the z-axis, which is up, zeta = z. -- Einstein.
There is no time dilation in z.
:-)
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
11 Jan 2006 08:00:01 PM |
|
|
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:dq37hq$qv8$1@dolly.uninett.no...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Stella moved in the z-axis, which is up, zeta = z. -- Einstein.
There is no time dilation in z.
:-)
How do you like my portrayal of Mickey Einstein?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm--"Man schließt daraus, daß eine am Erdäquator befindliche Unruhuhr um einen sehr kleinen Betrag langsamer laufen muß als eine genau gleich beschaffene, sonst gleichen Bedingungen unterworfene, an einem Erdpole befindliche Uhr." -- EinsteinThence we conclude that a sundial at the equator must go moreslowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar sundialsituated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.Thence we conclude that delta-t integrates daily.Thence we conclude that after 1,000,000,000 years the poleleads the equator by 3 months.Thence we conclude that after 4,000,000,000 years the poleleads the equator by 1 year.Thence we conclude that the Earth has stretched into a diskaround the sun. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.JPGThence we conclude that Einstein was a member of the Flat EarthSociety.Thence we conclude that Einstein was a crank.Thence we conclude that his disciples are all cranks.Der alte Hexenmeister ist:Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physicsschool for zauberlehrlings."One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering""In agreement with experience Einstein does not play dice,zunächst ist klar he cannot be Me." -- God
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 05:49:22 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
It does not. There are obvious ways to formulate it that do not require
accelerated motion. Now, dig hard, your face is exposed.
Mike
Everything is not symmetrical. Oh wait ... I know: Stella's observation
of physics is garbage or Terry's is garbage, or it's all a confidence
trick.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
And you wasted a lot of time creating a pretty jpeg that has no bearing
on reality, you big goof you.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 06:10:57 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
PD wrote:
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
Don't be silly. There are a whole lot of *other* things, too, that
happen to Stella that are different from what happens to Terence.
What they *see* through their telescopes, for example, is different.
That's in fact the whole point of the FAQ page. Didn't you read it?
Look, the claim was made that *everything* is symmetrical, and
that is plainly a false claim. To prove such a statement false, you
only have to find one thing that falsifies it, regardless of whether
that thing can be called the "cause" of the twin paradox or not.
It does not. There are obvious ways to formulate it that do not require
accelerated motion. Now, dig hard, your face is exposed.
Sure. But no such formulations compare one inertial clock with
a second clock that has remained inertial. And none of them
have anything remotely to do with the drawings that Androcles
has on his webpage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
07 Jan 2006 03:43:10 AM |
|
|
"Russell" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message
news:1136592657.130785.253720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Look, the claim was made that *everything* is symmetrical, and
that is plainly a false claim. To prove such a statement false, you
only have to find one thing that falsifies it, regardless of whether
that thing can be called the "cause" of the twin paradox or not.
Hoist by his own petard. :-)
Hey Russell! Do you know how to move sideways or up?
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
Right or wrong, dumbfuck?
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are,
pathetic *****.
Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
07 Jan 2006 04:37:19 AM |
|
|
"Russell" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message news:1136592657.130785.253720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
PD wrote:
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
Don't be silly.
Don't tell a malicious imbecile not to be silly ;-)
He isn't silly:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotsAndrocles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
08 Jan 2006 04:13:17 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Russell" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message news:1136592657.130785.253720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
PD wrote:
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
Don't be silly.
Don't tell a malicious imbecile not to be silly ;-)
He isn't silly:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotsAndrocles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
Dirk Vdm
I only have one link that says it all:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=dirk+square+root&rnum=2#28e1c228c606611b
Dirty van der merde in action teaching his likes the square root
helearned the day before in night school.
Idiot
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
09 Jan 2006 02:36:55 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1136657507.056627.252180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Russell" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message
news:1136592657.130785.253720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
PD wrote:
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see
Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and
is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on
return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I
flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3
hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent
entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not
happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
Don't be silly.
Don't tell a malicious imbecile not to be silly ;-)
He isn't silly:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotsAndrocles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
Dirk Vdm
I only have one link that says it all:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=dirk+square+root&rnum=2#28e1c228c606611b
Dirty van der merde in action teaching his likes the square root
helearned the day before in night school.
Idiot
Mike
I'll leave the pee puppy to you, Mike, but here's some updated ammunition.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
09 Jan 2006 11:04:00 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1136657507.056627.252180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Russell" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message news:1136592657.130785.253720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
PD wrote:
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
Don't be silly.
Don't tell a malicious imbecile not to be silly ;-)
He isn't silly:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotsAndrocles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
Dirk Vdm
I only have one link that says it all:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=dirk+square+root&rnum=2#28e1c228c606611b
This one will say even more:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
Dirty van der merde in action teaching his likes the square root
helearned the day before in night school.
"of course, bozzo":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
Idiot
At least you sign your posts appropriately ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
09 Jan 2006 01:31:24 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1136657507.056627.252180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Russell" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message news:1136592657.130785.253720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
...snip..
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
Don't be silly.
Don't tell a malicious imbecile not to be silly ;-)
He isn't silly:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotsAndrocles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
Dirk Vdm
I only have one link that says it all:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=dirk+square+root&rnum=2#28e1c228c606611b
This one will say even more:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
Dirty van der merde in action teaching his likes the square root
helearned the day before in night school.
"of course, bozzo":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
Idiot
At least you sign your posts appropriately ;-)
Dirk Vdm
As i wrote before, Einsteins theory is not a theory, but a method for
ego-boosting.
Looking at Dirk Vdm's website: the secret pleasures of an apologet.
Hero
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
07 Jan 2006 04:11:56 AM |
|
|
Russell wrote:
Mike wrote:
PD wrote:
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Except that Stella has a note in her logbook that says, "When I flipped
the big red switch today, I felt a big acceleration for about 3 hours.
Potato chips fell off the shelf, made a big mess, and I didn't feel
well enough to clean it up right away." Terry has no equivalent entry
in his logbook, because nothing like that happened to him.
What is it exactly do you think happened to Stella that did not happen
to Terry? is it maybe that once, somewhere (ng) someone told you that
this solves the twin paradox?
Don't be silly. There are a whole lot of *other* things, too, that
happen to Stella that are different from what happens to Terence.
What they *see* through their telescopes, for example, is different.
That's in fact the whole point of the FAQ page. Didn't you read it?
You mean Stella got her period and Terence got an erection. Which one
is your favority change?
Look, the claim was made that *everything* is symmetrical, and
that is plainly a false claim. To prove such a statement false, you
only have to find one thing that falsifies it, regardless of whether
that thing can be called the "cause" of the twin paradox or not.
No stupid. You also have to prove that your allenged change impacts
time exactly in such a way as to produce the result.
It does not. There are obvious ways to formulate it that do not require
accelerated motion. Now, dig hard, your face is exposed.
Sure. But no such formulations compare one inertial clock with
a second clock that has remained inertial. And none of them
have anything remotely to do with the drawings that Androcles
has on his webpage.
Hey stupid, do you know any physics at all? If tthere is no accelerated
motion, clocks remain in inertial reference frames. You can find a
dozen re-formulations of the twin paradox that do not require
acceleration. Look for them. Google your stupidity through.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 05:11:09 PM |
|
|
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a
lying rogue.
Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily,
they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have
belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust
things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.
-- Dogberry (Ado, V.i.2288-2292)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Der alte Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. |
06 Jan 2006 05:30:57 PM |
|
|
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dpmtgh$koc$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Der alte Hexenmeister wrote:
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a
lying rogue.
Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily,
they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have
belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust
things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.
-- Dogberry (Ado, V.i.2288-2292)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
