
Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted:
Jul 1, 2010 1:42 PM


On Jul 1, 7:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 11:55 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
So, Inertial, whoever, and artful are the same idiot. Gee! Why do Einstein Dingleberries have so many different handles? Once one handle gets embarrassed, they would come back with a different one.
> > Yes, the Lorentz transform manifests this twins' paradox thing. > > <shrug> > > > If you really understand the Lorentz transform, you will know this > > transform does not address any turnaround. Ask Professor Roberts. > > You will tell you the same thing. <shrug> > > > Professor Roberts and other selfstyled physicists had already walked > > away from this magical turnaround 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 > > selfstyled physicists have abandoned since. <shrug> > > > The turnaround 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.
It is no error. Langevin was the first to notice this twins? paradox. However, he cranked himself by proposing nonsense to resolve this paradox. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was the first to propose a turnaround counts as acceleration thus falls into the domain of GR. Using the principle of equivalence, the nincompoop was able to handwave it as a resolution to the twins? paradox. <shrug>
Years ago when PD was still proud of his professorship, I have presented the two traveling twins sharing the same acceleration profile. Also having the twins coasting away with no acceleration applied, PD came back predicting the twins will age the same when united. Of course, PD?s answer grossly violates the Lorentz transform and relative simultaneity. Pitching for one conjecture and using anther conjecture as application or interpretations to an experimental outcome is not a good way to do physics if you ask me.
[Rest of babbling nonsense snipped]
> > 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 > > socalled 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>

