"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > >On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: >> On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > >> > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an >> > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's >> > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". >> >> It IS an over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks >> running slow. > >Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug>
It may seem it to someone as uneducated as you.
>> > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the >> > compression of time for a clock turning around. >> >> WRONG > >Where is this Einstein?s paper on such provision then?
In the Lorentz transforms .. commonly the part called relativity of simultaneity.
>>> > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck >>> > Einstein's theory. >> >> There is NO paradox > >In real life, there is no paradox.
Nor in Sr
> Any conjecture that manifests a > paradox is garbage
Indeed it is
> such as SR. <shrug>
No paradox in SR. . If you know of any acutal paradoxes (rather than just unintuitive or surprising results), please feel free to post them
>> > It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of >> > mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of >> > contention. >> >> WRONG .. your assumption that the turnaround does not affect the >> clocks is WRONG > >Where is the math that shows this turn around thing?
It called the Lorentz Transforms. You apply them when changing from one frame of reference to another .. which is what happens to the travelling twins when they change their direction of motion.
if you had any knowledge of physics, you may have heard of these transforms, or even how to apply them. Shame you don't
>> > It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with >> > Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting >> > Einstein's theory. Here it is again: >> >> The only irrational one is YOU .. who claim to argue about what SR >> says.. but refuse to actually use what SR says in full. Just a non- >> working subset. > >What SR says is all in the Lorentz transform?
All that is relevant to this scenario
> When are you going to > understand the Lorentz transform?
Years ago. Shame you are just not able to handle it yourself.
>> > colp: >> > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations >> > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, >> >> > Daryl: >> > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically >> > and physically nonsense. >> >> > colp: >> > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, >> > nothing else. > ><APPLAUD> > >[rest of whining crap snipped] > >Please show the math on the turn around. If not, get lost.
If you're as clever as you think .. YOU show the math for the symmetric twins scenario that shows a paradox / contradiction. You are the one claiming such contradictions exist. Let see your attempt before I post mine .. otherwise you'll just claim that you could do it all along