"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jun 15, 3:55 am, Hayek wrote:
: Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
: symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
: twins remain at the same age.
:
: "It has to be symmetric... so there cannot be a time dilation."
:
: There are ample resources available on the web and in bookstores
: to get you out of this first-semester sticking point.

Only an attention seeking imbecile would claim

"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. "
and there is no way around that sticking point, cretin, no matter how many
resources you hallucinate.

On Jun 17, 2:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

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.

For the accelerated twin, the integral you have does not come from the
Lorentz transform. Thus, it is not SR. It should follow the same
form or symmetry as of the inertial twin below.

Delta t = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) dT)

** from T1 to T2

Versus

Delta T = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) dt)

** from t1 to t2

On Jun 16, 10:23 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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

Voigt never published until Lorentz did.

From Ted Newman's mouth to my ears - I'll trust him over you any day
of the week.


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.

Wrong. The Lorentz transformation is derived from special relativity.

Familiarize yourself with 20th century physics rather than historical
footnotes.


Special relativity adequately handles the twins paradox.

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


You don't know what you are talking about. The classical Lorentz
transform is a boost from a stationary frame to a frame of constant
velocity. The twins paradox has acceleration - the traveling twin
accelerates instantaneously from v to -v.

[...]


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.

Changing the sign of v doesn't change the answer.

[...]

On Jun 17, 11:04 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:23 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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

Voigt never published until Lorentz did.

This again is not true. Both Larmor and Lorentz had plenty of
correspondence with Voigt. By the time when Larmor modified the Voigt
transformation, Voigt had lost interest in this topic and moved on to
what he thought then was more influential.

From Ted Newman's mouth to my ears - I'll trust him over you any day
of the week.

Who?

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

Wrong. The Lorentz transformation is derived from special relativity.

It is not possible since the Lorentz transform of 1899 was a
modification of the Voigt transform of 1887. SR was formulated by
Poincare in 1904 based on the Lorentz transform. SR was also
described by Einstein in 1905. In 1905, Einstein knew of the Lorentz
transformation and fouled up badly on its derivation. Therefore, it
is absolutely impossible that the Lorentz transform was derived from
SR. Because of the properties of the Lorentz transform, SR is merely
an interpretation to this piece of mathematics. shrug

Familiarize yourself with 20th century physics rather than historical
footnotes.

Done that.

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

You don't know what you are talking about. The classical Lorentz
transform is a boost from a stationary frame to a frame of constant
velocity. The twins paradox has acceleration - the traveling twin
accelerates instantaneously from v to -v.

Not necessarily. You don't know jack sh*t. 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.

Changing the sign of v doesn't change the answer.

What does changing sign have anything to do with the resolution?

Hint: It is more involved than a change of sign. shrug

On Jun 17, 10:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 17, 11:04 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 16, 10:23 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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

Voigt never published until Lorentz did.

This again is not true. Both Larmor and Lorentz had plenty of
correspondence with Voigt. By the time when Larmor modified the Voigt
transformation, Voigt had lost interest in this topic and moved on to
what he thought then was more influential.

From Ted Newman's mouth to my ears - I'll trust him over you any day
of the week.

Who?

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

Wrong. The Lorentz transformation is derived from special relativity.

It is not possible since the Lorentz transform of 1899 was a
modification of the Voigt transform of 1887. SR was formulated by
Poincare in 1904 based on the Lorentz transform. SR was also
described by Einstein in 1905. In 1905, Einstein knew of the Lorentz
transformation and fouled up badly on its derivation. Therefore, it
is absolutely impossible that the Lorentz transform was derived from
SR. Because of the properties of the Lorentz transform, SR is merely
an interpretation to this piece of mathematics. shrug

Einstein fouled nothing up, crank.

Your whining is irrelevant anyway because Einstein's formalism is not
used. Learn about Minkowski's four-dimensional formalism.

[...]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message ups.com...
On Jun 17, 2:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

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.

For the accelerated twin, the integral you have does not come from the
Lorentz transform. Thus, it is not SR. It should follow the same
form or symmetry as of the inertial twin below.

Delta t = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) dT)

** from T1 to T2

Versus

Delta T = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) dt)

** from t1 to t2

But of course it has the same form.
The accelerated twin feels proper acceleration a(T), so we use
Delta t = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) ( 1 + a(T) X(T) ) dT )

The inertial twin feels proper acceleration A(t), so we use
Delta T = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) ( 1 + A(t) x(t) ) dt )
which, since inertiality means A(t) = 0 for all t, reduces to
Delta T = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) dt ).
which is the form you are used to seeing - obviously without
understanding, looking at your fabulous record on Lorentz
transformations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...WhatWrong.html

It hurts, doesn't it?

Dirk Vdm

On Jun 18, 2:54 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
[...]

Where does this joker even think he learned relativity from?

He can't get the vocabulary right. He can't get the math right. He
can't get the philosophy right. He can't get ANYTHING about relativity
right, but he talks about it for years on end.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message ups.com...
On Jun 18, 2:54 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
[...]

Where does this joker even think he learned relativity from?

He can't get the vocabulary right. He can't get the math right. He
can't get the philosophy right. He can't get ANYTHING about relativity
right, but he talks about it for years on end.

That's what trolls are made of.
It doesn't matter how they are treated - as long as they *are*
treated, it's okay with them.

Dirk Vdm

On Jun 18, 3:54 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

For the accelerated twin, the integral you have does not come from the
Lorentz transform. Thus, it is not SR. It should follow the same
form or symmetry as of the inertial twin below.

Delta t = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) dT)

** from T1 to T2

Versus

Delta T = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) dt)

** from t1 to t2

But of course it has the same form.
The accelerated twin feels proper acceleration a(T), so we use
Delta t = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) ( 1 + a(T) X(T) ) dT )

This is still not the Lorentz transform. shrug

The inertial twin feels proper acceleration A(t), so we use
Delta T = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) ( 1 + A(t) x(t) ) dt )
which, since inertiality means A(t) = 0 for all t, reduces to
Delta T = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) dt ).
which is the form you are used to seeing - obviously without
understanding,

So, your transformation degenerates into the Lorentz transform does
not make yours the Lorentz transform. shrug

looking at your fabulous record on Lorentz
transformations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...WhatWrong.html

Ah! My pride posts are all there. Thank you.

It hurts, doesn't it?

On the contrary, no.

Do you feel guilty to be a crackpot by modifying the Lorentz transform
to fudge the answer you have already known? Doesn't that hurt?

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message oups.com...
On Jun 18, 3:54 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

For the accelerated twin, the integral you have does not come from the
Lorentz transform. Thus, it is not SR. It should follow the same
form or symmetry as of the inertial twin below.

Delta t = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) dT)

** from T1 to T2

Versus

Delta T = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) dt)

** from t1 to t2

But of course it has the same form.
The accelerated twin feels proper acceleration a(T), so we use
Delta t = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) ( 1 + a(T) X(T) ) dT )

This is still not the Lorentz transform. shrug

Of course it is not the Lorentz transformation.
Neither is this:
Delta t = INTEGRAL(sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) dT)


My dearest imbecile, *this* is what we regular folks, call the
Lorentz transformation:
x' = g ( x - v t )
t' = g ( t - v x/c^2 )

The time integral
Delta t = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(T)^2) ( 1 + a(T) X(T) ) dT )
can be derived from the Lorentz transformation for the instantaneously
comoving inertial frame. For instance
http://www.geocities.com/slithytove5/AccelClocks.htm
Pure SR, but do yourself a favour: don't try to understand it.
You'll hurt yourself plenty.
On second thought, please *do* try to understand it.
You'll hurt yourself plenty.


The inertial twin feels proper acceleration A(t), so we use
Delta T = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) ( 1 + A(t) x(t) ) dt )
which, since inertiality means A(t) = 0 for all t, reduces to
Delta T = INTEGRAL( sqrt(1 - v(t)^2) dt ).
which is the form you are used to seeing - obviously without
understanding,

So, your transformation degenerates into the Lorentz transform does
not make yours the Lorentz transform. shrug

looking at your fabulous record on Lorentz
transformations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...WhatWrong.html

Ah! My pride posts are all there. Thank you.

No, myopic retard, here's some more, related to other topics:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...agrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...LonelyTop.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...SmellHere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...woMetrics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...latSphere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...easonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...agrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../LosingIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...elativity.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Potential.html


It hurts, doesn't it?

On the contrary, no.

Do you feel guilty to be a crackpot by modifying the Lorentz transform
to fudge the answer you have already known? Doesn't that hurt?

How infinitely stupid you are :-)
Who ever had the brilliant idea to put an imbecile like you on this planet?
Your mother?
And your father?
Are you sure about the latter?

Dirk Vdm