On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
? Why are you replying to me with this stunning non-discovery?
> > > > > > > > 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 turn-around. Ask Professor Roberts. > > > You will tell you the same thing. <shrug> > > > > 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. > > It is no error. Langevin was the first to notice this twins? > paradox. However, he cranked himself by proposing nonsense to resolve > this paradox.
? What is nonsensical about the resolution. Oh, that's right, it's nonsensical if you say it makes no sense to you, and if it makes sense to someone else, then they're simply unable to see that it in fact makes no sense. Because it makes no sense to you.
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was > the first to propose a turn-around counts as acceleration
No, actually, I believe that would be more in the scope of Newton's contemporaries. Does it come as a surprise to you that a turn-around counts as an acceleration in classical physics too?
> thus falls > into the domain of GR. Using the principle of equivalence, the > nincompoop was able to hand-wave it as a resolution to the twins? > paradox. <shrug>
Where is your reference that Einstein proposed GR as a resolution to the twin paradox? Or are you just making it up? Oh, that's right, it's true if you say it is true, even if everyone else is too deluded to see the truth of it.
> > Years ago when PD was still proud of his professorship, I have > presented the two traveling twins sharing the same acceleration > profile.
Yes, and it has been brought up again recently.
> Also having the twins coasting away with no acceleration > applied, PD came back predicting the twins will age the same when > united.
Well, of course, if there is a reunion, then there must have been an acceleration someplace, right? It's awfully hard for two twins to depart from each other and then reunite without an acceleration someplace, doncha think so?
> Of course, PD?s answer grossly violates the Lorentz transform > and relative simultaneity.
I don't think so. Perhaps if you could point out the violation of the Lorentz transform in that case. Perhaps you could also point out the violation of relative simultaneity in that case. Oh that's right, if no one can see it except for you, then it's just too bad for everyone else, isn't it?
> 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 > > > 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>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -