On 26 feb, 18:27, PD wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:19 am, Albertito wrote:



I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.

Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
for the so-called relativistic motions.

The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.

Allow me to introduce a new term to you. It is defined as stringing
together jargon words from a discipline in a way that is grammatically
correct, but which carries no real semantic content. It is the
reciting of words attached to concepts that you don't understand, put
together in a way that suggests conceptual connection whether those
concepts are really connected or not. This new term, which you may
hear frequently in response to your posts: "word salad."

PD

Who understand the quantum world? The quantum world is so weird
that it is beyond human's apprehension. If you say that you
understand
QM you're lying. Nobody understands QM. But, QM will be enhanced
in such an extent that nothing of SR and GR will remain in the realm
of physics, both old theories will be wildly gobbled. And all started
as a
joke :-)

On Feb 26, 12:59*pm, Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 18:27, PD wrote:





On Feb 26, 6:19 am, Albertito wrote:

I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.

Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
for the so-called relativistic motions.

The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.

Allow me to introduce a new term to you. It is defined as stringing
together jargon words from a discipline in a way that is grammatically
correct, but which carries no real semantic content. It is the
reciting of words attached to concepts that you don't understand, put
together in a way that suggests conceptual connection whether those
concepts are really connected or not. This new term, which you may
hear frequently in response to your posts: "word salad."

PD

Who understand the quantum world? The quantum world is so weird
that it is beyond human's apprehension.

Oh, that's not really right at all.

What is true, though, is that it is NOTHING like what makes common
sense.
For some people, if it can't be reconciled with common sense, then
NOBODY can understand it.

If you say that you
understand
QM you're lying. Nobody understands QM. But, QM will be enhanced
in such an extent that nothing of SR and GR will remain in the realm
of physics, both old theories will be wildly gobbled. And all started
as a
joke :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 26 feb, 18:56, PD wrote:
On Feb 26, 12:09 pm, Albertito wrote:



On 26 feb, 17:03, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:
"Albertito" wrote in message

...
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed v0. According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too.

Most cranks reinvent the same 'proof that SR is wrong"
over and over.
But you have invented a brand new approach, so idiotic
that no other crank has thought of it.
Congratulations!

If it is a joke, I went right into it. :-)
It was superb.

--
Paul

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

Of course it is a joke. What is science but a joke?
Most interesting approaches (theories/hypothesis)
that actually work started being crank ideas, jokes,
gedankenexperiments, games. Do you agree? :-)

As a follow-up, this is the BIG misconception of the hobbyist and the
hopeful amateur. The mistake is thinking that the *most important*
part of the work is the concept, the inspiration, the crazy idea, the
thought experiments, the elementary application of logic and common
sense. There is the HUGELY unfortunate misperception that this is what
Einstein did that made him famous. It is also unfortunately abetted by
the vast number of coffee-table books and Discovery Magazine articles
that try to make the basic ideas accessible to the casual reader while
completely glossing over the real work that was done, and in the
process giving the mistaken impression that that's all there is to it.

This error has led to two responses, which is directly responsible to
90% of the traffic on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.

1) "Heck, I can do that." This produces quarter-baked "theories" and
word-salad appeals that are aimed by the hobbyist to mimic *in
appearance* what they think was done, on the basis of what they've
seen in coffee-table books and magazine articles. That is, they try to
reproduce something that is at the same depth as the coffee-table book
and magazine articles, and they hope that doing that is the really
essential part. "Otherwise," they rationalize, "if the in-depth stuff
was really important, they would have covered it in the
popularizations."

2) "Well then, he's famous for no good reason." This produces
invective and slanderous aspersions to Einstein's character,
attribution of the work to other people, accusations of cover-up and
wholly invented worship of an arbitrarily selected icon. This
perception falsely raises the hope of the hobbyist to think, "Heck, if
he can get famous for doing very little except use his noggin, then I
can get famous for doing very little except using my noggin."

Keep in mind that both of these reactions are based on superficial
exposure and very limited understanding of the real work, both
theoretical and experimental. It is also very common. It is also an
error that needs to be corrected. It is worth it to the *hobbyist*
that it be corrected.

A similar account is hehttp://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...atItTakes.html.
I'll remark that a number of people reacted to that post with "How
*dare* you shut down the dreams of the amateur!" There is a fine and
important distinction between a reality check and a shut-down.

PD

Gee, your verbal diarrhoea "word salad" is worst than mine :-)
I would include a third kind of responses which do almost
the 80% of the noise,
3) "The passive cleaners", Those who never start a thread,
and their only task is replying restlessly, with the 'sane'
intention
of preserving the Holy Established Truth.

On Feb 26, 10:41*am, Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:





"Albertito" wrote in message

...
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed *v0.

Unless you describe how masses move in the
clock mechanism your experiment breaks with
reality here.

http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/lcap/race.html

Sue...


According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, *and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a *t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too

On 26 feb, 19:53, "Sue..." wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:41 am, Albertito wrote:



On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:

"Albertito" wrote in message

...
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed v0.

Unless you describe how masses move in the
clock mechanism your experiment breaks with
reality here.

http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/lcap/race.html

Sue...

According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too

Dear Sue:
You are right. How masses move in the clock
mechanism is very important for that experiment.
But, there is something called "entangled clocks"
that NASA is currently researching about
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._entangled.xml
;-)

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
| On 26 feb, 17:03, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
| Albertito wrote:
| On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Albertito" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| | close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| | younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| | Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
| |
| | Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| | quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| | Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| | for the so-called relativistic motions.
| |
| | The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| | clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| | because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| | frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| | which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| | decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| | a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
| |
| Where's the proof?
|
| The proof is as follows:
| Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
| Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
| sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
| Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
| speed v0. According to SR, A clock is now running
| faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
| also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
| If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
| any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
| both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
| be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
| A clock would show a time t_a, and B clock a time
| t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a t_b.
| A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
| B clock, too.
| Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
| When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
| decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
| those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
| the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too.
|
| Most cranks reinvent the same 'proof that SR is wrong"
| over and over.
| But you have invented a brand new approach, so idiotic
| that no other crank has thought of it.
| Congratulations!
|
| If it is a joke, I went right into it. :-)
| It was superb.
|
| --
| Paul
|
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
|
| Of course it is a joke. What is science but a joke?
| Most interesting approaches (theories/hypothesis)
| that actually work started being crank ideas, jokes,
| gedankenexperiments, games. Do you agree? :-)
|
Tusseladd's (that's Norwegian for troll and Andersen is an ASS-istant
professor in Kristiansand, Norway) proof of time dilation is this:

" While an observer on the Earth measure 1,000,000 years,
an observer on the Moon (if we ignore the mass of the Moon)
would measure 1000000.0006797 years.
That is approximately 6 hours more than the observer on the Earth."

According to Tusseladd, when the sun is setting in Norway an
observer on the Moon looks up at the Earth sees the day/night
terminator crossing New York (as shown in these photographs):
http://www.godandscience.org/images/moonearth.jpg
http://www.geography4kids.com/extras...nearth_580.jpg
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65046&rendTypeId=4

This is why he's an ASS-istant professor in a community
college in the Outback of Europe.

If you want to check the figures yourself,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

I got it wrong, you see, but I knew Tusseladd would give
us the "correct" answer. He likes to prove me wrong and
falls for it every time.

Anyway, every million years the Earth falls back 6 hours
behind the Moon and has being doing so for the last 4,000
million years, so that's err... 1000 million days, 365.25 days
a year, which means the Moon has orbited the Sun about
2.7 million times more than the Earth.

Tusseladd is the cretin that says:
" But you have invented a brand new approach, so idiotic
that no other crank has thought of it."

Androcles (wrong again ;-)

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 6:19 am, Albertito wrote:
I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.

Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
for the so-called relativistic motions.

The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.

| Allow me to introduce a new term to you.
[ word salad deleted.]

AND Walmart watches for $40 are only good for +/- 3 minutes a year.
[Androcles 7 -- Phuckwit Duck 0]

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 12:09 pm, Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 17:03, "Paul B. Andersen"





wrote:
Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:
"Albertito" wrote in message

...
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed v0. According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too.

Most cranks reinvent the same 'proof that SR is wrong"
over and over.
But you have invented a brand new approach, so idiotic
that no other crank has thought of it.
Congratulations!

If it is a joke, I went right into it. :-)
It was superb.

--
Paul

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

Of course it is a joke. What is science but a joke?
Most interesting approaches (theories/hypothesis)
that actually work started being crank ideas, jokes,
gedankenexperiments, games. Do you agree? :-)

| As a follow-up,

We don't need any follow-ups, drunken heckle ignored.
See Smiffy, he'll love you, "Dear" Duck.

Albertito skrev:
On 26 feb, 17:03, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:
"Albertito" wrote in message
...
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?
The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed v0. According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too.
Most cranks reinvent the same 'proof that SR is wrong"
over and over.
But you have invented a brand new approach, so idiotic
that no other crank has thought of it.
Congratulations!

If it is a joke, I went right into it. :-)
It was superb.

--
Paul

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

Of course it is a joke.

If you had stopped there, I would have accepted it as a joke.

But you go on, which make me wonder:

What is science but a joke?
Most interesting approaches (theories/hypothesis)
that actually work started being crank ideas, jokes,
gedankenexperiments, games. Do you agree? :-)

Still joking?
If not, please name a theory which started as
being crank ideas, jokes.

Crackpot theories don't count.

--
Paul

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

On Feb 26, 3:19*pm, Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 19:53, "Sue..." wrote:





On Feb 26, 10:41 am, Albertito wrote:

On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:

"Albertito" wrote in message

....
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed *v0.

Unless you describe how masses move in the
clock mechanism your experiment breaks with
reality here.

http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/lcap/race.html

Sue...

According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, *and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a *t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too

Dear Sue:
You are right. How masses move in the clock
mechanism is very important for that experiment.
But, there is something called "entangled clocks"
that NASA is currently researching about

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._entangled.xml

I don't find the word *inertia* in that reference so it
contributes nothing to better describe how masses would
move in the the clocks of your experiment.

Try this:


-the invariance of physical systems with respect
to spatial translation (in other words, that the
laws of physics do not vary with locations in space)
gives the law of conservation of linear momentum;

-invariance with respect to rotation gives the
law of conservation of angular momentum;

-invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Sue...



;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -