"Daniel Weston" wrote in message ...
Androcles: May I ask of you a favor? I would like your response to a
question regarding proper time.

I have occasionally asked how, if motion is relative, the difference in
clocks upon the twin reunion is predictably different, with the
traveling twin showing less elapsed time. And the difference can be
exactly calculated in accordance with SR. I perceive a contradiction
which is a most serious accusation. I am not saying I am right in this
regard, I am saying that it appears to me to be inconsistent. The
relativists never explain why this is not a contradiction, they simply
work out for me the applicable math.

It has been explained to you hundreds of times, with and
without math. You just don't have what it takes to understand
the explanation. That is nothing to be ashamed of. Usually
people who face such a problem put their minds to something
else. You don't, so it seems that you are stuck with this, and
you will have to learn to live with it. But no problem, you
obviously don't mind.


But I notice that those posters that are anti relativity never join in
on my side. This indicates to me that I have dropped some serious
stitches.

No, it is normal. When two people have no clue about some
subject, they usually mutually look at the other one as having
no clue what he is talking about. That is what most of those
'anti relativists' have in common.
Just look at a random exchange between Androcles and let's
say Henri Wilson, or Ken Seto... They are all incredibly
ignorant and stupid and arrogant, and they tear each other
apart. Sometimes it is even nice to watch them :-)


Do you think my perceived inconsistency is valid? If the problem cited
at the beginning of this thread really is no problem, could you explain
to me what mistake I have made?


This *could* become very interesting.


And ha yes, it's you posting. That means - blank lines with
spaces at the end of the message. Always the same pattern.
I'll put some vertical bars at the end of each line...

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

hey, you left some blank lines...

|
|
|
|
|
|

and some more...

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

hm, more blank lines...

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

I know you are a webtv subscriber. Do you have any idea
what these lines are doing here?
No, probably not. I have asked you before, and you don't
seem to understand the question.

Does anyone else have any idea?

Dirk Vdm

Dirk: I notice that your answer is rather typical. No response to my
question is forthcoming, rather I am referred to prior answers numbering
in the hundreds that explain my question. And of course this is
followed by the obligatory insult.

I am not as learned as you in science. Would you mind just addressing
the question posed above? I would be forever grateful. To be a good
teacher you must have the virtue of being long suffering. During the
last year I have learned additional matters that may now enable me to
understand an answer that is not circular. Thanks.

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message ...
Dirk: I notice that your answer is rather typical. No response to my
question is forthcoming, rather I am referred to prior answers numbering
in the hundreds that explain my question. And of course this is
followed by the obligatory insult.

I am not as learned as you in science. Would you mind just addressing
the question posed above? I would be forever grateful. To be a good
teacher you must have the virtue of being long suffering. During the
last year I have learned additional matters that may now enable me to
understand an answer that is not circular. Thanks.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Just like you are curious about your thing, I am curious
about these blank lines. We both have asked our question
more than once. Unlike you, I never have had an answer
to my question.

Dirk Vdm

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
Androcles: May I ask of you a favor? I would like your response to a
question regarding proper time.


Always a pleasure, Daniel. Ask away, I'm here to set physics straight.
I took great delight in vanquishing Schwartz and Beilawski, I can spare
a moment for you.


I have occasionally asked how, if motion is relative, the difference in
clocks upon the twin reunion is predictably different, with the
traveling twin showing less elapsed time. And the difference can be
exactly calculated in accordance with SR. I perceive a contradiction
which is a most serious accusation. I am not saying I am right in this
regard, I am saying that it appears to me to be inconsistent. The
relativists never explain why this is not a contradiction, they simply
work out for me the applicable math.

But I notice that those posters that are anti relativity never join in
on my side. This indicates to me that I have dropped some serious
stitches.

Do you think my perceived inconsistency is valid? If the problem cited
at the beginning of this thread really is no problem, could you explain
to me what mistake I have made?

Possibly the reason you don't get any assistance
(joining in on your side) is that you do not respond
when such assistance is given. This leaves the
assister uncertain whether the assistee has read his
post or not and he quickly ceases to bother. All the assistee
need say is"I agree or "I disagree" (or even "Thank you")
and the assister will then be reassured that his assistance was
noticed. That is the serious stitch you dropped.
No response whatsoever discourages further discussion.
Further, you attacks upon Reaney were a tad overboard
and I left you to your own devices since I had no interest
in arguing semantics.

Any form of the twin paradox will produce a contradiction, it
is called a paradox because it IS a contradiction.
Therefore your perception is valid.
The average relativist does not understand Galilean relativity,
and cannot read. If he were to do so, he'd read Einstein's:

"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet....
Examples of this sort, together with [...] will hereafter be called the
``Principle of Relativity''.

Hence the PoR is good old Galilean relativity and motion is indeed relative.
Einstein quickly draws attention away from that, asking his readers to focus
on his second postulate, which is TOTALLY irreconcilable with the former,
namely, that " light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."

Full text can be found at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The relativist will use a completely different set of postulates, notably
found
at Wackypedia.

quote:
1: The laws of the universe are the same regardless of inertial frame of
reference.
2: The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is the same to all
inertial observers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postula...ial_relativity

One of the strengths of special relativity is that it can be derived from
only a few premises:

a.. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (specifically, 299,792,458
metres per second).
b.. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial frames.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference in which the laws of mechanics hold good (non-accelerating
frames).
In other words: Every physical theory should look the same mathematically to
every inertial observer; the laws of physics are independent of the state of
inertial motion.

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body; here the
velocity of light c is defined as the two-way velocity, determined with a
single clock.
In other words: The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is the
same to all inertial observers, and does not depend on the velocity of the
object emitting the light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
[end quote]

As you can see, the PoR which Copenicus used to show the Earth rotated
to face the Sun daily has been abandoned in favour of some nonsense about
inertial frames, as Einstein intended.

In 1920, 15 years later, Einstein was under considerable opposition to his
crazy
ideas and wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Comments in square brackets are mine.

"Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and
General Theory. 1920.
The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity.
[He's now calling it "Apparent"]

THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according
to which light is propagated in empty space
[except the Principle of Relativity, a really simple law].

Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
[Harry Potter]
propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity
c = 300,000 km./sec

[relative to the source, but cosmic muons can win that race by a mile,
literally. Einstein seems to have forgotten he said "we shall, however,
find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity"].

At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity
is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case
[prisms would split white light into different colours and we
never see that, and ]

the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously
for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark
neighbour

[except that Algol has no dark neighbour, John Goodricke, 18 years
old with a toy telescope in 1782 forgot to include the velocity of
light into his calculations and an eclipse means no light at all,
not a reduction in magnitude, besides which calculations reveal
that such a system is unstable, the "dark neighbour" is at the Roche
limit and will break up]

By means of similar considerations based on observations of
double stars
[Sirius, 8 light years away with a period of 50 years,
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap001006.html
no other double has ever been seen]

the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity
of motion of the body emitting the light
[oh really? how? I see no significant velocity v from Sirius to add to c].

The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent
on the direction "in space" is in itself improbable

[but factually true. Compare http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
(fig 3 with http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Real scientists don't deal in assumptions and probables or persuasion].

In short, let us assume [No, I will not assume]
that the simple law [because Einstein says it is a law]
of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably
believed by the child at school
[who also believes in Santa Claus, but not believed by thinking
rational adults].

Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously
thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?
[and solved them, not being a peanut brain like Einstein, it wasn't that
difficult]

Let us consider how these difficulties arise
[because Einstein can make up stories] ."

[Skip silly train story]

At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena.
(Einstein wants to be famous]
As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time
and space,
[insert here this 'analysis' in Einstein's own words]
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
[end insert. Some great analysis, that was.]
it became evident that [Einstein is lying through his teeth]
in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the
principle of relativity [which he hasn't discussed at all]
and the law of propagation of light
[Because Einstein says so, it's a LAW, stomp foot]
and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a
logically [huh?] rigid theory could be arrived at
[such as the speed of light being infinitely great in his theory].
This theory has been called the special theory of relativity
[or the special theory of the excrement of the male bovine]
to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which
we shall deal later."


So as you see, it's all persuasion and no physics.
As with all hucksters, he has to play the part of "Mr. Nice Guy"
just as Roberts does in order to be successful.
He's such a nice gentleman, a really decent jewish pacifist
and A ****ING LYING CHEATING ROGUE!
Excuse my French. I learned it from watching TV.
Androcles.

Daniel Weston wrote:
Androcles: May I ask of you a favor? I would like your response to a
question regarding proper time.

I have occasionally asked how, if motion is relative, the difference in
clocks upon the twin reunion is predictably different, with the
traveling twin showing less elapsed time. And the difference can be
exactly calculated in accordance with SR. I perceive a contradiction
which is a most serious accusation. I am not saying I am right in this
regard, I am saying that it appears to me to be inconsistent. The
relativists never explain why this is not a contradiction, they simply
work out for me the applicable math.

But I notice that those posters that are anti relativity never join in
on my side. This indicates to me that I have dropped some serious
stitches.

Do you think my perceived inconsistency is valid?
Yes.
If the problem cited
at the beginning of this thread really is no problem, could you explain
to me what mistake I have made?
The clock which Einstein 'invents' with the Lorntz transform does not
respond to motion the same as a clock viewed over a path of
changing length. Of course they won't compare.

Sue...