sue jahn wrote:
IOW
What the the great Einstein can't conceive, is fair game for
a negative proof. ;-)

No. The point is that understanding a subject as complicated as math or
physics is a lot of work. If you aren't willing to do that work, then
the subject will always be a mystery to you.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

sue jahn wrote:
IDIOT!!!

Frame of reference -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia articleSimply put, a set of locally inertial reference frames at varying
distances from the Earth's axis are twisting up kind of like molasses stirred by a central ...
www.absoluteastronomy.com/ encyclopedia/f/fr/frame_of_reference.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

You seem to think that URLs are a substitute for thinking. They aren't.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

sue jahn wrote:
"SDaryl" wrote

No, in the case of Special Relativity, science was dirt
cheap---Einstein did it in his spare time. It didn't cost
taxpayers one cent.

Pontificating on the backs of old envelopes is not science.

Sometimes it is. It depends on the quality of the pontificating. In
Einstein's case, yes, it was science.

The point is that there is no inconsistency involved in the twin
paradox.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

SDaryl wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
IDIOT!!!

Frame of reference -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia articleSimply put, a set of locally inertial reference frames at varying
distances from the Earth's axis are twisting up kind of like molasses stirred by a central ...
www.absoluteastronomy.com/ encyclopedia/f/fr/frame_of_reference.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

You seem to think that URLs are a substitute for thinking. They aren't.

I beleive you mean they are no subsitute for fantasy.
I agree.

Sue...


--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Sue... wrote:

You seem to think that URLs are a substitute for thinking. They aren't.

I beleive you mean they are no subsitute for fantasy.

No, I mean that you post URLs and quotes without attempting to
understand what you are posting.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"SDaryl" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn wrote:
"SDaryl" wrote

No, in the case of Special Relativity, science was dirt
cheap---Einstein did it in his spare time. It didn't cost
taxpayers one cent.

Pontificating on the backs of old envelopes is not science.

Sometimes it is. It depends on the quality of the pontificating. In
Einstein's case, yes, it was science.

Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of
relevant quantities. That is, a scientific quantity is described or
defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague,
inexact or "idealized" definition. For example, electrical current,
measured in Amperes, may be operationally defined in terms
of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode
in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail.
The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons
with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies
on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum
kept in a laboratory in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

As a consequence of its motion the clock goes
more slowly than when at rest.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Judge for youself and ask your doctor to adhere
to the same standards you use.

Sue...





The point is that there is no inconsistency involved in the twin
paradox.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"SDaryl" wrote in message oups.com...

Sue... wrote:

You seem to think that URLs are a substitute for thinking. They aren't.

I beleive you mean they are no subsitute for fantasy.

No, I mean that you post URLs and quotes without attempting to
understand what you are posting.
You just don't want to understand them.
They might spoil your myths and fantasies.

Sue...


--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

sue jahn wrote:
"SDaryl" wrote

No, I mean that you post URLs and quotes without attempting to
understand what you are posting.
You just don't want to understand them.

I'm saying that *you* don't understand them. You are using URLs and
quotes and insults as cheap substitutes for thinking.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"SDaryl" wrote in message
ps.com...
| Androcles,
|
| I just want to remind you that if something seems like nonsense to
you,
| there is always two possible explanations: (1) It really *is*
nonsense,
| and (2) It is not nonsense, but you are misunderstanding it.

| Yes, I know it can be really difficult sometimes to tell the
difference
| between these two cases.

Then you must deduce logically whether it is nonsense or not.

The mosquito flies 32 ft from Sam to Joe in 16 seconds and takes
4 seconds to fly back again because Sam and Joe are walking at
3 fps. That's reality.
Along comes Einstein and says "I don't like that. The time for a
mosquito to fly from Sam to Joe is the same as it take from Joe
to Sam."
"Ok", says McCullough. "Applying the cuckoo transforms, the
distance between Sam and Joe is now 40 ft and it takes 8 seconds
each way, 5 fps, in their waffle of inertial waffle reference with
waffle
proper time and coordinate time and blah waffle handwave blah
blah waffle waffle obfuscate), so the speed of mosquitoes is 5 fps
in all frames of reference and I'll call that a postulate."

I just want to remind you that if something is nonsense, there are
always
five possible explanations:
(1) It really *is* nonsense,
(2) It really *is* nonsense,
(3) It really *is* nonsense,
(5) It really *is* nonsense, and fourth but not least, it really *is*
nonsense, whether you understand it or not.

Yes, I know it can be really difficult sometimes to tell the difference
between these five cases.

You *can* understand it if you derive the cuckoo transforms from
first principles instead of accepting them at face value.

Androcles

"SDaryl" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| sue jahn wrote:
| "SDaryl" wrote
|
| No, in the case of Special Relativity, science was dirt
| cheap---Einstein did it in his spare time. It didn't cost
| taxpayers one cent.
|
| Pontificating on the backs of old envelopes is not science.
|
| Sometimes it is. It depends on the quality of the pontificating. In
| Einstein's case, yes, it was science.

ROFLMAO!
Androcles



|
| The point is that there is no inconsistency involved in the twin
| paradox.
|
| --
| Daryl McCullough
| Ithaca, NY
|