On Jun 16, 5:27 am, Hayek wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

The twin's paradox is the manifestation of the combination of time
dilation and the principle of Relativity (or the symmetry as
identified by Mr. Hayek). To resolve this paradox any one of the
following must occur.

** Proving time dilation invalid
** Proving the principle of Relativity wrong
** Proving both wrong

Unfortunately doing so by accepting one of the above resolutions, the
Lornetz transformation must be abandoned. Since SR is merely an
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR must
also be rejected. shrug

Let us start with the Michelson and Morley experiment.

It does tell us that inertial motion cannot be locally detected by this
kind of experiment.

To explain this fact LT are sufficient, but then we need to find an
absolute background. SR goes further and removes the need for an
absolute background, but gives rise to the twin paradox.

....which is only a paradox to those who cannot abandon classical
notions.

The twins paradox has been reformulated a thousand times and solved a
thousand times again. There is no internal contradiction in the
theory.


IMNSHO, SR is a step too far, the absolute background is the inertial
field created by the surrounding masses being the masses of the
universe. The twin paradox instantly disappears, and SR stays even valid
for round trip experiments.

You'd like Ernst Mach..


Uwe Hayek.

On Jun 15, 4:08 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:02 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The twin's paradox is the manifestation of the combination of time
dilation and the principle of Relativity (or the symmetry as
identified by Mr. Hayek). To resolve this paradox any one of the
following must occur.

** Proving time dilation invalid
** Proving the principle of Relativity wrong
** Proving both wrong

d) None of the above.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/712a723d664...



Unfortunately doing so by accepting one of the above resolutions, the
Lornetz transformation must be abandoned. Since SR is merely an
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR must
also be rejected. shrug

The Lorentz transform IS special relativity, you ignoramus.

No, both SR and LET are different interpretations to the Lorentz
transform. shrug


The resolution is elementary only to the religious ones married to a
faith. shrug

Acceleration cannot be a resolution to the twin's paradox as proposed
by Einstein. Why? You can always design a scenario where both twins
undergo the same amount of acceleration for the same amount of time.
Or very simply just show me the math for each twin's point of view.

On top of that, gravitational time dilation occurs not because of
acceleration since experiments on centrifuge do not exhibit any time
dilation due to acceleration.- Hide quoted text -

On Jun 16, 6:27 am, Hayek wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

The twin's paradox is the manifestation of the combination of time
dilation and the principle of Relativity (or the symmetry as
identified by Mr. Hayek). To resolve this paradox any one of the
following must occur.

** Proving time dilation invalid
** Proving the principle of Relativity wrong
** Proving both wrong

Unfortunately doing so by accepting one of the above resolutions, the
Lornetz transformation must be abandoned. Since SR is merely an
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR must
also be rejected. shrug

Let us start with the Michelson and Morley experiment.

It does tell us that inertial motion cannot be locally detected by this
kind of experiment.

Yes, this enabled Voigt to hold the speed constant rather in the
classical case of holding the wavelength invariant. shrug

To explain this fact LT are sufficient,

The Voigt transform also explains the null result of the MMX.
shrug That's two for now.

but then we need to find an
absolute background. SR goes further and removes the need for an
absolute background, but gives rise to the twin paradox.

Thus, SR being an interpretation to the Lorentz transform is just
bogus because the Lorentz transform is the one that gives the twin's
paradox.

IMNSHO, SR is a step too far, the absolute background is the inertial
field created by the surrounding masses being the masses of the
universe. The twin paradox instantly disappears, and SR stays even valid
for round trip experiments.

SR is just very simply wrong, and so is the Lorentz transform.
shrug

On Jun 16, 1:58 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 16, 5:27 am, Hayek wrote:

To explain this fact LT are sufficient, but then we need to find an
absolute background. SR goes further and removes the need for an
absolute background, but gives rise to the twin paradox.

...which is only a paradox to those who cannot abandon classical
notions.

The mathematics of the Lorentz transform indicates a very real
paradox. shrug

The twins paradox has been reformulated a thousand times and solved a
thousand times again. There is no internal contradiction in the
theory.

All resolutions are utter bullsh*t! There is no resolution to the
twin's paradox under the Lorentz transform. shrug

On Jun 16, 7:44 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 15, 4:08 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Jun 15, 3:02 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The twin's paradox is the manifestation of the combination of time
dilation and the principle of Relativity (or the symmetry as
identified by Mr. Hayek). To resolve this paradox any one of the
following must occur.

** Proving time dilation invalid
** Proving the principle of Relativity wrong
** Proving both wrong

d) None of the above.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/712a723d664...

Unfortunately doing so by accepting one of the above resolutions, the
Lornetz transformation must be abandoned. Since SR is merely an
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR must
also be rejected. shrug

The Lorentz transform IS special relativity, you ignoramus.

No, both SR and LET are different interpretations to the Lorentz
transform. shrug

Wielding your ignorance like a shield again?

Lorentz transforms are the class of boosts from one frame to another.
They are derived from the mathematics of special relativity, which has
been shown to you countless times over the years. Crack open any
introductory textbook - you seriously should.

As for LET....LET is irrelevant, nobody but a few cranks cares about
it. It is barely worth mentioning as an historical footnote.

[...]

On Jun 16, 7:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

Voigt, a close friend of Lorentz, never shared his discovery until
Lorentz published. Voigt is an historical footnote, and completely
irrelevant to modern relativity.


but then we need to find an
absolute background. SR goes further and removes the need for an
absolute background, but gives rise to the twin paradox.

Thus, SR being an interpretation to the Lorentz transform is just
bogus because the Lorentz transform is the one that gives the twin's
paradox.

SR is not an "interpretation to the Lorentz transform", dip****.

Special relativity adequately handles the twins paradox. You are just
too stupid to understand the resolution - I gave you one already, and
there are several in the sci.physics FAQ. Just because you are
incapable of understanding, does not mean there is a problem anywhere
but in your head.


IMNSHO, SR is a step too far, the absolute background is the inertial
field created by the surrounding masses being the masses of the
universe. The twin paradox instantly disappears, and SR stays even valid
for round trip experiments.

SR is just very simply wrong, and so is the Lorentz transform.
shrug

I presented the mathematical resolution of the twins paradox, and all
you can do is whine about it like the little bitch that you are.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c?dmode=source

I bet that you are unable to give me even ONE literature reference for
your opinions. All those little sayings like "SR interpretation to the
Lorentz transform" have no support in the literature. There is not one
person on Earth who agrees with you, and it is hilarious.

On Jun 16, 8:51 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:44 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

No, both SR and LET are different interpretations to the Lorentz
transform. shrug

Wielding your ignorance like a shield again?

You are very philosophical tonight as always. shrug

Lorentz transforms are the class of boosts from one frame to another.

So, how many classes there are?

They are derived from the mathematics of special relativity,

This is total bullsh*t. SR is an interpretation to the mathematics of
the Lorentz transform. shrug

which has been shown to you countless times over the years.

And every time is a bullsh*t in the making. shrug

Crack open any
introductory textbook - you seriously should.

If it says exactly what you have said about the Lorentz transform
being derived from SR, you need to return that book and ask for a
complete refund.

As for LET....LET is irrelevant, nobody but a few cranks cares about
it. It is barely worth mentioning as an historical footnote.

LET is another interpretation to the Lorentz transform. It is as
relevant or irrelevant as SR. shrug

On Jun 16, 9:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Voigt, a close friend of Lorentz, never shared his discovery until
Lorentz published. Voigt is an historical footnote, and completely
irrelevant to modern relativity.

This is not true. Lamore was the first to present the Lorentz
transform after modifying the Voigt transform to accommodate for the
principle of relativity. shrug

Thus, SR being an interpretation to the Lorentz transform is just
bogus because the Lorentz transform is the one that gives the twin's
paradox.

SR is not an "interpretation to the Lorentz transform", dip****.

SR must be an interpretation to the Lornetz transform. PERIOD.

Special relativity adequately handles the twins paradox.

No, it does not because the Lorentz transform manifests this paradox.

You are just
too stupid to understand the resolution - I gave you one already, and
there are several in the sci.physics FAQ.

On the contrary, I understand them all. You are the one who refuses
to admit the emperor having no clothes on. shrug

Just because you are
incapable of understanding, does not mean there is a problem anywhere
but in your head.

The twin's paradox is a serious one. shrug

I presented the mathematical resolution of the twins paradox, and all
you can do is whine about it like the little bitch that you are.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/712a723d664...

Now, I want you to show me the mathematics from the other twin's point
of view.

I bet that you are unable to give me even ONE literature reference for
your opinions.

If all believe in faith that the emperor has clothes on, you are very
correct. I cannot find another person to share my point of view, and
it is very lonely to be the only one that is correct on this subject.
shrug

All those little sayings like "SR interpretation to the
Lorentz transform" have no support in the literature.

It is in the history. The Lorentz transform predated SR by at least 5
years. shrug

There is not one
person on Earth who agrees with you, and it is hilarious.

It is hilarious only to me, yes. Ignorant rants just do not know they
are ignorant. Isn't that another Confucius saying?

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message oups.com...
On Jun 16, 9:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Voigt, a close friend of Lorentz, never shared his discovery until
Lorentz published. Voigt is an historical footnote, and completely
irrelevant to modern relativity.

This is not true. Lamore was the first to present the Lorentz
transform after modifying the Voigt transform to accommodate for the
principle of relativity. shrug

Thus, SR being an interpretation to the Lorentz transform is just
bogus because the Lorentz transform is the one that gives the twin's
paradox.

SR is not an "interpretation to the Lorentz transform", dip****.

SR must be an interpretation to the Lornetz transform. PERIOD.

Special relativity adequately handles the twins paradox.

No, it does not because the Lorentz transform manifests this paradox.

You are just
too stupid to understand the resolution - I gave you one already, and
there are several in the sci.physics FAQ.

On the contrary, I understand them all. You are the one who refuses
to admit the emperor having no clothes on. shrug

Just because you are
incapable of understanding, does not mean there is a problem anywhere
but in your head.

The twin's paradox is a serious one. shrug

I presented the mathematical resolution of the twins paradox, and all
you can do is whine about it like the little bitch that you are.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/712a723d664...

Now, I want you to show me the mathematics from the other twin's point
of view.

Quick and dirty:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...iewpoints.html
Compare the readings of the tables t(T) and T(t) at the events
of departure, turnaround and return.

Dirk Vdm

On Jun 17, 6:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 9:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Voigt, a close friend of Lorentz, never shared his discovery until
Lorentz published. Voigt is an historical footnote, and completely
irrelevant to modern relativity.

This is not true. Lamore was the first to present the Lorentz
transform after modifying the Voigt transform to accommodate for the
principle of relativity. shrug

Thus, SR being an interpretation to the Lorentz transform is just
bogus because the Lorentz transform is the one that gives the twin's
paradox.

SR is not an "interpretation to the Lorentz transform", dip****.

SR must be an interpretation to the Lornetz transform. PERIOD.

Special relativity adequately handles the twins paradox.

No, it does not because the Lorentz transform manifests this paradox.

You are just
too stupid to understand the resolution - I gave you one already, and
there are several in the sci.physics FAQ.

On the contrary, I understand them all. You are the one who refuses
to admit the emperor having no clothes on. shrug

Just because you are
incapable of understanding, does not mean there is a problem anywhere
but in your head.

The twin's paradox is a serious one. shrug

I presented the mathematical resolution of the twins paradox, and all
you can do is whine about it like the little bitch that you are.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/712a723d664...

Now, I want you to show me the mathematics from the other twin's point
of view.

Quick and dirty:

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...iewpoints.html
Compare the readings of the tables t(T) and T(t) at the events
of departure, turnaround and return.

Their is a magnetic view and an electric view. You calculate for
neither.


Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure.
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

Sue...


Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -