On Jun 30, 11:55 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > > >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> > > > >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> > > > > Any conjecture that manifests a > > > paradox is garbage > > > Indeed it is > > I know the Lorentz transform is garbage. <shrug> > > > > 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. > <shrug> > > > >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> > > > 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> > > > >What SR says is all in the Lorentz transform? > > > All that is relevant to this scenario > > If you really understand the Lorentz transform, you will know this > transform does not address any turn-around. Ask Professor Roberts. > You will tell you the same thing. <shrug> > > > > 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. Oh, the tell-tale sign > is claiming the mathematics of the turn-around is within this > transform. Yes, I call your bluff. <shrug> > > > 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. 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> > > > You are the one claiming such contradictions exist. > > Yes, but others did too. Either I am a genius, or you are just > fvcking stupid as hell. <shrug> > > > 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. 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> > > The turn-around thing is stupid. The one who first proposed that was > none other than Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
This is either an error or a lie. The one who proposed it was Langevin.
KW, if you are unaware of the math of relativity of simultaneity and how it comes from the Lorentz transformations, then you need to get educated better than you are.
If you are unaware of how the relativity of simultaneity plays a role in the twin puzzle, then you need to get educated better than you are.
If you are unaware of who posed the twin puzzle in the first place, then you need to get educated better than you are.
If you do not think that you could possibly be more educated than you are, then you need to get educated better than you are.
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was actually the > biggest nincompoop of all. The Lorentz transform was Poincare's > work. The mistake was also within Poincare not Einstein the nitwit, > the plagiarist, and the liar. Relative simultaneity was again > Poincare's analysis to the nonsense of the Lorentz transform not > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The field > equations were first derived by Hilbert, after pulling out that bogus > so-called Lagrangian from his own ass, not Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar. Realizing there are infinity solutions that > are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat to the > field equations, Hilbert realizing what a Frankenstein he had created > decided to walk away from it and allowed Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit. <shrug>