"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message news:55d52e86-8dfc-456d-b038-b4080f4c01fa@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > >On Jun 30, 5:19 pm, "whoever" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" wrote: > >> >Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> >> >> It may seem it to someone as uneducated as you. > > Ahahaha... Let me show you. Come on right in.
Go ahead. Should be amusing to see you try
>> >Where is this Einstein?s paper on such provision then? >> >> In the Lorentz transforms .. commonly the part called relativity of >> simultaneity. > >Where is this magical time dilation correction at turn around? It is >nowhere to be found in the Lorentz transform nor in this relative >simultaneity thing. <shrug>
I just told you where. Oh that's right, you're a moron and can't be expected to have any reasonable level of comprehension
>> >In real life, there is no paradox. >> >> Nor in Sr > >SR is merely a fvcked conjecture/interpretation to the Lorentz >transform. SR is never the problem. The Lorentz transform is. ><shrug>
So .. you're backing down. So where is the paradox in the lorentz transforms. Or are you going to admit that there aren't any
>> > Any conjecture that manifests a >> > paradox is garbage >> >> Indeed it is > >I know the Lorentz transform is garbage. <shrug>
Prove it .. show the paradox in Lorentz transforms. Or are you just all talk and bluster?
>> > 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 > >Yes, the Lorentz transform manifests this twins' paradox thing.
Its not a paradox.
> <shrug>
back at you
>> >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. > >You still have not shown me the math that describes any turn-around. ><shrug>
You've not shown any paradox.
>> if you had any knowledge of physics, you may have heard of these >> transforms, >> or even how to apply them. Shame you don't > >You need to show the math. If not, get lost. <shrug>
Same back at you. You make the claim that there are paradoxes ... show them
>> >What SR says is all in the Lorentz transform? >> >> All that is relevant to this scenario > >If you really understand the Lorentz transform,
I do
> you will know this > transform does not address any turn-around.
Wrong
> Ask Professor Roberts. > You will tell you the same thing. <shrug>
No .. he won't
>> > When are you going to >> > understand the Lorentz transform? >> >> Years ago. Shame you are just not able to handle it yourself. > >Although I am a lousy poker player in which I don't bluff, I can see > you as an illiterate on the Lorentz transform.
bluster bluster bluster ..and no math to support you
> Oh, the tell-tale sign > is claiming the mathematics of the turn-around is within this > transform. Yes, I call your bluff. <shrug>
I called yours .. show the paradox you claim is there. Don't try to back out
>> If you're as clever as you think .. YOU show the math for the symmetric >> twins scenario that shows a paradox / contradiction. > >I have done that in the past.
Nppe
> I and others have suggested the two > traveling twins with identical acceleration profiles to nullify this > so-called turn-around nonsense to ease every skeptic's mind. In > addition, I have proposed variable cruising time with no acceleration> > to build up this uneven time dilation. Hey, it is strictly all in the > mathematics. You are indeed very fvcking stupid if you still cannot > see the checkmate. <shrug>
No checkmate .. just you bullshitting and unable to come up with the goods of showing a paradox
>> You are the one claiming such contradictions exist. > > Yes, but others did too.
Show one
> Either I am a genius,
Nope
> or you are just > fvcking stupid as hell. <shrug>
Wrong on both counts.. You're such a loser
>> Let see your attempt before I post mine >> .. otherwise you'll just claim that you could do it all along > >Professor Roberts and other self-styled physicists had already walked > away from this magical turn-around thing to nullify the time dilation > problem.
Nope
> You are on your own. In case if you still cannot figure it > out. Oh, well, you are indeed a moron ranting something that other > self-styled physicists have abandoned since. <shrug>
You just described yourself .. all bluster and shrugs and never a word of actual physics
> The turn-around thing is stupid.
Only to you, because you're a moron and too uneducated to understand it. Not my problem.
[snip more bluster and adhoms on Einstein which don't do anything to support you claim of paradoxes in SR and the LT]
Nothing left. So .. you're not up to the challenge. You just make wild claims against SR and run away. Not a surprise
