Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length
contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less
sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last
scientist with an intact rationality. The moment people started
worshipping at the idiocy according to which either observer measures
the other observer's clock to be slower than his own, or passengers in
the train measure the tunnel to be shorter than the train whereas
observers in the tunnel measure the train to be shorter than the
tunnel, a revolution took place. Humanity entered a world where the
supernatural is natural. A huge army of zombies systematically destroy
those who would continue to call it "supernatural". Dieu est toujours
pour les plus gros bataillons. Rational criticism is impossible: you
cannot refute truths like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length".

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length
contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less
sensitive to physical absurdity.

Poincare was every like mathematician iin 1900,
He worshipped Maxwell Equations and Groups so much,
he had no clue what physics was.

Which DeBroglie was doing, rather than Poincare.



Roughly speaking, he was the last
scientist with an intact rationality

Exactly speaking Poincare was last person in the entire
uiviverse that believed that Cantor's diagonal proof
had something to do with science.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation
and length contraction,

Actually, he was the first to highlight the group property of the LT...

Harald

although as a mathematician he should have been less
sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last
scientist with an intact rationality. The moment people started
worshipping at the idiocy according to which either observer measures
the other observer's clock to be slower than his own, or passengers in
the train measure the tunnel to be shorter than the train whereas
observers in the tunnel measure the train to be shorter than the
tunnel, a revolution took place. Humanity entered a world where the
supernatural is natural. A huge army of zombies systematically destroy
those who would continue to call it "supernatural". Dieu est toujours
pour les plus gros bataillons. Rational criticism is impossible: you
cannot refute truths like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length".

Pentcho Valev

Nay! The length of the Crocodile exceeds its Greenness...

"BEM" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nay! The length of the Crocodile exceeds its Greenness...


Surely that depends upon the doppler effect, right? I mean, it could be
he's simply red-shifted from _our_ point of view...

-Howard

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length
contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less
sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last
scientist with an intact rationality.

The future went to the "irrational, "I guess. It took the "irrational"
to get outside the "rational" box of mechanistic thinking that had
hamstrung physics since the middle of the nineteenth century.

The moment people started
worshipping at the idiocy according to which either observer measures
the other observer's clock to be slower than his own,

Two twins, A and B, stand at opposite ends of a football field. Each
measures himself to be 6 feet tall, but measures his twin to be an inch
tall (say). The point is that the measurement has to be interpreted
operationally. And it's the theory that you operate under that tells
you (interprets for you) what you have observed. Observations are
theory laden.

... Rational criticism is impossible:

Why don't you try it for a change? The entire point of Einstein's Twins
Thought Experiment was to answer the question: Is there a real
difference in the clock times of the two twins? So long as both twins
remain in inertial frames that question can't be answered because there
is no well-defined start and stop events for a comparison to be made
between the clock times of the two clocks.

The simplest way to answer this question is to setup a situation where
the twins start off at the same place at the same time (event 1) and
end up at some place and the same time (event 2), at which point they
can compare their clock readings. The only stipulation is that one twin
remains inertial and the other one doesn't, for this sets up an
asymmetry between the two twins in the experiment. As viewed in a
spacetime diagram, one twin has a straight path between start and
finish events and the other one doesn't. This asymmetry obviates the
so-called 'paradox' in the twins thought experiment. There is no
paradox. Yet cranks claim that there is. Your right, I guess: Rational
criticism is impossible!

wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length
contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less
sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last
scientist with an intact rationality.

The future went to the "irrational, "I guess. It took the "irrational"
to get outside the "rational" box of mechanistic thinking that had
hamstrung physics since the middle of the nineteenth century.

The moment people started
worshipping at the idiocy according to which either observer measures
the other observer's clock to be slower than his own,

Two twins, A and B, stand at opposite ends of a football field. Each
measures himself to be 6 feet tall, but measures his twin to be an inch
tall (say). The point is that the measurement has to be interpreted
operationally. And it's the theory that you operate under that tells
you (interprets for you) what you have observed. Observations are
theory laden.

... Rational criticism is impossible:

Why don't you try it for a change? The entire point of Einstein's Twins
Thought Experiment was to answer the question: Is there a real
difference in the clock times of the two twins? So long as both twins
remain in inertial frames that question can't be answered because there
is no well-defined start and stop events for a comparison to be made
between the clock times of the two clocks.

The simplest way to answer this question is to setup a situation where
the twins start off at the same place at the same time (event 1) and
end up at some place and the same time (event 2), at which point they
can compare their clock readings. The only stipulation is that one twin
remains inertial and the other one doesn't, for this sets up an
asymmetry between the two twins in the experiment. As viewed in a
spacetime diagram, one twin has a straight path between start and
finish events and the other one doesn't. This asymmetry obviates the
so-called 'paradox' in the twins thought experiment. There is no
paradox. Yet cranks claim that there is. Your right, I guess: Rational
criticism is impossible!

The only reason it's not a paradox is because it only works
in ONE experiment. The moron Hubble Telescope and
Red Shifting. It doesn't work in blue shifting, since
Astronomers are PBS NOVA morons.

It doesn't work in Solar Eclipses since mathematicians
are 100% cetrified Boeing / Google / World Trade Center
Social Scientists and EVE Doppler Morons, rather than
scientists.

wrote in message
oups.com...


The only reason it's not a paradox is because it only works
in ONE experiment. The moron Hubble Telescope and
Red Shifting. It doesn't work in blue shifting, since
Astronomers are PBS NOVA morons.

It doesn't work in Solar Eclipses since mathematicians
are 100% cetrified Boeing / Google / World Trade Center
Social Scientists and EVE Doppler Morons, rather than
scientists.


Wow, what a fun group! I'm new here, and so far I must say I'm enjoying
this immensely. Kind of like watching a junior high class, without its
teacher. And on meth.

If the above quote is indicative of the quality of discussion here, perhaps
I've misunderstood the purpose of the group...?

I do have some questions about SR, but I see the FAQ has a lot to offer, so
I'm going there for a while, and I'll just watch this space in the meantime.

Looks like this is gonna be a fun ride...

-Howard

(BTW, does the fact that this person is posting via Google while ranting
about being associated with Google strike anyone else as ironic?)

"Howard" wrote in message
...


Just noticed the original is cross-posted. Sorry for the cross-posted
reply. I'm only interested in sci.physics.relativity. (But from the looks
of it so far, perhaps it should be renamed psycho.relativity?)

-Howard

Howard wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


The only reason it's not a paradox is because it only works
in ONE experiment. The moron Hubble Telescope and
Red Shifting. It doesn't work in blue shifting, since
Astronomers are PBS NOVA morons.

It doesn't work in Solar Eclipses since mathematicians
are 100% cetrified Boeing / Google / World Trade Center
Social Scientists and EVE Doppler Morons, rather than
scientists.


Wow, what a fun group! I'm new here, and so far I must say I'm enjoying
this immensely. Kind of like watching a junior high class, without its
teacher. And on meth.

Well it should be that, since the only
idiots in the entire universe who do math, arre
Junior High soccer morons,
and their Al Gore UN groupies.




If the above quote is indicative of the quality of discussion here, perhaps
I've misunderstood the purpose of the group...?

I do have some questions about SR, but I see the FAQ has a lot to offer, so
I'm going there for a while, and I'll just watch this space in the meantime.

Looks like this is gonna be a fun ride...

-Howard

(BTW, does the fact that this person is posting via Google while ranting
about being associated with Google strike anyone else as ironic?)