On Jul 23, 3:22***am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...***sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Shubee wrote:
> > What assumptions, if any, must be added to the Lorentz transformation
> > in order to compute time dilation for a clock-carrying traveler?
>
> This depends upon what assumptions accompany the Lorentz transform. If
> one merely assumes the usual schoolbook equations, then one must add a
> large number of assumptions/definitions relating to what the symbols
> mean and how they are applied.
>
> Once one has sufficient structure to establish that the LT relates
> Minkowski coordinates between two inertial frames, and how the symbols
> in the LT map to properties of those frames, then the only assumptions
> required are related to the specific physical situation you have in
> mind, and to what you mean by "time dilation for a clock-carrying traveler".
>
> *** *** *** *** The usual meaning of "time dilation" is the difference in
> *** *** *** *** measured rates among clocks at rest in different inertial
> *** *** *** *** frames. But your "carried by a traveler" suggests you
> *** *** *** *** probably have something else in mind, such as a twin
> *** *** *** *** scenario. Note that the twin scenario does NOT display
> *** *** *** *** "time dilation", it displays a difference in elapsed
> *** *** *** *** proper times for clocks that travel on different paths.
> *** *** *** *** This is analogous to the distinction between the slope of
> *** *** *** *** a line and its path length -- quite different concepts.
>
> But still for a twin scenario, to compute the difference in elapsed
> proper times with the above structure it only requires assumptions
> related to the specific physical situation you have in mind.

Bravo Honest Roberts! If you continue to develop this verbiage, soon
Einstein zombie world will start singing "Divine Roberts":

No-one’s as dee-vine as Thomas Roberts
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!...etc:

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

However, Honest Roberts, there is a grand secret betwen hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult: in 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the
twin paradox which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and
clever, are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
1918 very silly paper do exist:

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
"On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
Unnikrishnan

I think Honest Roberts it is time for you to demonstrate the power of
your verbiage: you just analyse Divine Albert's 1918 very silly paper,
prove it is in fact very clever and then the world, both relativists
and anti-relativists, immediately starts singing "Divine Roberts". I
will be singing too Honest Roberts:

Pentcho Valev (after Honest Roberts has proved that Divine Albert's
1918 very silly paper is very clever): "No-one’s as dee-vine as Thomas
Roberts not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!..."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the twin paradox
> which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and clever,
> are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
> 1918 very silly paper do exist:
>
> http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
> Unnikrishnan

Pentcho,

I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox was
silly and incompetent.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee <e.Shubee***gmail.com> wrote in message
e154c28b-daca-4170-bed2-f3d61980dd26...oglegroups.com
> On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> In 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the twin paradox
>> which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and clever,
>> are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
>> 1918 very silly paper do exist:
>>
>> http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>> "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
>> Unnikrishnan
>
> Pentcho,
>
> I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox was
> silly and incompetent.
>
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

If only Poncho would engage in a conversation with you.
*That* would be interesting.
Come on Pispo, go for it!

Dirk Vdm

Pentcho Valev a écrit :

> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev***yahoo.com
>
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

--
kd

On Jul 23, 6:26***pm, hwabnig*** .- --- -. dotat wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
>
> <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> >"On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
> >Unnikrishnan
>
> From there:
> Planck’s assertion2 that there is no physical method
> of measurement of the velocity of motion through space
> is made void by the various markers available in cosmology,
> especially the dipole anisotropy of the CMBR.
> end cit.
>
> When did Planck live?
> When was CMBR measured?
> How good are those measurements?
> How do we calibrate our speedometers then?
> Interstellar matter does have -what- influence or none?
>
> Where are the "various markers available"?
> What are our coordinates in the Universe?
> Where is the Universe Point Zero ?
> Where can I buy a "Universe Positioning System"?
>
> Please Pentcho, ask Unnikrishnan.

I don't care about Unnikrishnan. Unnikrishnan is innocent. He did not
destroy rationality in science. Einstein did (rather, finished what
Clausius had already started):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/433218a.html
John Barrow in the journal Nature: "Einstein restored faith in the
unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done
something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody
could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for
a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the
mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly
impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they
cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to
observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that
appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal
of the mysterious."

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

Shubee wrote:
[snip crap]

> I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox was
> silly and incompetent.
>
> Shubee
[snip more crap]

1) Fucking imbecile
2) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>

3) Fucking imbecile
4) Google
"twin paradox" 93,800 hits
5) Fucking imbecile
6) You are an ignorant perseverative ass,

The ratio by which the twins have aged at the end when they are back
together again is the same in all reference frames:

ratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (with units of c=1)

Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
through spacetime. No clock anomaly is apparent in any of them until
clocks are compared (by all being local when you do it, initial
calibration then experiment). The situation is NOT symmetric.

Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present clocks but
not to the mixture of space and time in the reference frame that said
clocks measure. You cannot synchronize clocks except by having them
local. If they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty
thereafter without measuring acceleration.

Given three identical clocks that are off (a state of not running, or
of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed. Each clock has/will
have a very short toggle jiggger switch sticking out. We load them (or
their parts, or ore and a smelter and a machine shop) in individual
spaceships and set up the experiment.

CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Touch the jigger
and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on" state becomes "off."
Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from parts just before we need
it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.

CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built after all
acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past Clock 1 (our
clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are now "on" and
locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time accumulates in each
one. The situation is NOT symmetric!

CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction to Clock 2.
Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all acceleration
ceased, and set to zero.

Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn "on" by
touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching jiggers.
Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down the elapsed time
in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with a sledgehammer. Or
melt it down, or toss it over the side. The spaceship with Clock 3 is
returning back over the path taken by the spaceship with Clock 2.

CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Clock 3 rushes
past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off. All clocks are off.
No clock has accelerated while "on" or even while existing. Write down
elapsed times, smash each clock with a sledgehammer. Or melt them
down, or toss them.

BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together... Accelerate as
you need. Or send all the results to all three folks by radio and
never decelerate. All clocks have been smashed, melted, tossed. Their
elapsed times were written down. The numbers on the papers won't
change when you accelerate or broadcast the data.

Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal
#1, the local stationary reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3
elasped time is only about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed
time. You have the Twin Paradox (Triplets) without any running clock
having been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration
up or down.

7) Fucking imbecile

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Jul 23, 2:18 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...***hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the twin paradox
> > which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and clever,
> > are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
> > 1918 very silly paper do exist:
>
> > http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> > "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
> > Unnikrishnan
>
> Shubee wrote:
>
> > I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox
> > was silly and incompetent.
>
> > Shubee
>
> 1) Fucking imbecile
> 2) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....>

And what does your signature and Einstein's incompetence have to with
experimental constraints on special relativity?

> 3) Fucking imbecile
> 4) Google
> "twin paradox" 93,800 hits
> 5) Fucking imbecile

Likewise, what does your signature and Einstein's incompetence have to
with google hit results?

> 6) You are an ignorant perseverative ass,

This is the first time in my life that I mentioned Einstein's
inability to resolve the twin paradox. If not believing in your god
makes me an ignorant ass, so be it.

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/TYSaDTW.asp
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

Shubee

On Jul 23, 12:18 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

> 1) Fucking imbecile
> 2) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....>

Each of these tests covers a small piece of SR. <shrug> Not a single
one of these tests addresses the issue that is the twin’s paradox.

> 3) Fucking imbecile
> 4) Google
> "twin paradox" 93,800 hits

Google “god”. 667,000,000 hits. <shrug>

> 5) Fucking imbecile
> 6) You are an ignorant perseverative ass,

<shrug>

> The ratio by which the twins have aged at the end when they are back
> together again is the same in all reference frames:
>
> ratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (with units of c=1)

So, the ratio is sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2). There is nothing significant.
<shrug>

> Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
> through spacetime. No clock anomaly is apparent in any of them until
> clocks are compared (by all being local when you do it, initial
> calibration then experiment). The situation is NOT symmetric.

The Lorentz transform is always symmetric even if v is not constant.
<shrug>

> Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present clocks but
> not to the mixture of space and time in the reference frame that said
> clocks measure. You cannot synchronize clocks except by having them
> local. If they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty
> thereafter without measuring acceleration.

The observed time dilation of the other is mutually identical. As
long as all the moving parties never meet again, relative simultaneity
holds. However, when they meet again at anyone particular frame of
reference, sh*t is going to hit the fan.

> Given three identical clocks that are off (a state of not running, or
> of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed. Each clock has/will
> have a very short toggle jiggger switch sticking out. We load them (or
> their parts, or ore and a smelter and a machine shop) in individual
> spaceships and set up the experiment.
>
> CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
> reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Touch the jigger
> and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on" state becomes "off."
> Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from parts just before we need
> it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.
>
> CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
> frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built after all
> acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past Clock 1 (our
> clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are now "on" and
> locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time accumulates in each
> one. The situation is NOT symmetric!
>
> CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
> frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction to Clock 2.
> Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all acceleration
> ceased, and set to zero.
>
> Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn "on" by
> touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching jiggers.
> Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down the elapsed time
> in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with a sledgehammer. Or
> melt it down, or toss it over the side. The spaceship with Clock 3 is
> returning back over the path taken by the spaceship with Clock 2.
>
> CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
> reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Clock 3 rushes
> past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off. All clocks are off.
> No clock has accelerated while "on" or even while existing. Write down
> elapsed times, smash each clock with a sledgehammer. Or melt them
> down, or toss them.
>
> BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together... Accelerate as
> you need. Or send all the results to all three folks by radio and
> never decelerate. All clocks have been smashed, melted, tossed. Their
> elapsed times were written down. The numbers on the papers won't
> change when you accelerate or broadcast the data.

Nice scenario you have come up with. Let’s see if your conclusion
abides by the Lorentz transform.

> Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal
> #1, the local stationary reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3
> elasped time is only about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed
> time.

To discuss this issue thoroughly. Allow me to define the following.

** T1 = Total elapsed time of clock 1
** T2 = Total elapsed time of clock 2
** T3 = Total elapsed time of clock 3
** T0 = Elapsed time of clock 1 when 2 and 3 connects

** B2 c = Speed of 2 as observed by 1
** B3 c = Speed of 3 as observed by 1

Thus, we have

T1 – T0 = Elapsed time of clock 1 from T0
when 3 and 1 connects

Writing down the equations, from 1’s point of view, we have

** T = T2 / sqrt(1 – B2^2)
** T1 – T = T3 / sqrt(1 – B3^2)

From 2’s point of view, we have

** T2 = T / sqrt(1 – B2^2)

From 3’s point of view, we have

** T3 = (T1 – T) / sqrt(1 – B3^2)

The only circumstance that these equations can coexist is when

** T1 = T2 = T3 = T = 0

This is obviously impossible in real life.

Or when

** B2 = B3 = 0

This means 2 and 3 can never move away
from 1. This is also absurd.

Thus, your conclusion is faulty. Under the Lorentz transform, you
cannot even begin to equate/synchronize the clocks. This is the
meaning of relative simultaneity. That is why the twin’s paradox can
never have any resolution. That is why the Lorentz transform is
wrong. That is why you are 1). After all these years without
understanding the Lorentz transform, that is why you are still 7).
<shrug>

> You have the Twin Paradox (Triplets) without any running clock
> having been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration
> up or down.
>
> 7) Fucking imbecile

Shubert is correct in stating Einstein’s attempt to use acceleration
to resolve the twin’s paradox is absurd. It does not work. All you
have to do is to send both 2 and 3 away with identical acceleration
profiles starting at rest with 1. At maximum speeds, leave a time
period where 2 and 3 are coasting without any acceleration. Then,
bring 2 and 3 home also with the same acceleration profile in which 2
and 3 have already agreed before hand to execute on cue. According to
the Lorentz transform, it is impossible to compare the clocks of all
three. Thus, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a lair. The
Lorentz transform is kaput. You are merely priests to continue the
religion of SR based on the stupidity of the Lorentz transform with
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being the messiah.
<shrug>

Viva the Orwellian education:

** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS TRUTH
** STUPIDITY IS INTELLECT

the sited paper was interesting, but hardly dyspositive
from my current skimming; can you "say,
what you think that it means?"

the idea of "instantaneous acceleration" is absurd, and
also a big waste of energy, a total conversion of mass,
the big crime of the wouldbejihadi -- all 98# of him or her (also
known
as "quantun teleportation to Paradise" .-)

> >>http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> >> "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C.S.Lewis & H.R.Pufnstuf.

> > I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox was

thus:
horse****; one twin accelerates, presumably
so as to experience the "slowing of his clock,"
relative to the twin, who stayed at the F-type planet, or
"time dilation;" you are being supercilious!

> frames. But your "carried by a traveler" suggests you
> probably have something else in mind, such as a twin
> scenario. Note that the twin scenario does NOT display
> "time dilation", it displays a difference in elapsed
> proper times for clocks that travel on different paths.

thus:
I don't get it; I finally unscrolled the end of your paper,
to find the usual 1D Lorentz thingy, applicable
to dilation of relative time, mass etc.; so, What?

> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

thus:
the obvious problem with the "rubber snake wave power" would
be the one that all sea-going ships face, even
in the wet-dock.

--Welome to the Cheenysphere --
your 24/7/51 channel for everyhting that can be known, and
lots of speculation, about Trickier Dick
form the Nixon Admin. ..."You mean,
Dick was doing his magic, then, two?"
yeah, but *what* he & Rumfseld were doing,
seems to be a national security matter.
http://larouchepub.com

On Jul 23, 10:30 pm, PD wrote:
> On Jul 23, 11:54 pm, Shubee wrote:

> > And that doesn't answer the twin paradox, and physicists know that,
> > which is why Einstein's embarrassing paper is never parroted as an
> > authoritative answer to silence critics.
>
> It doesn't need to be parroted and there are no credible critics to
> silence, though there are a number of incredible critics to mock.

It is absolutely unbelievable that a stupid comment like the above
would come from a professor of physics. Oh, well. Pathetic life
marches on.

> > The subject is the twin paradox in special relativity. There is only
> > one question. How brainless do physicists have to be to not realize
> > that the acceleration and deceleration of a traveling twin only
> > requires a negligible amount of time?
>
> Rhetorical question. The amount of time spent in the acceleration and
> deceleration is *completely* irrelevant to the teaching puzzle. The
> fact that the world line is not straight is what matters. It doesn't
> matter whether it's two straight legs with a rather abrupt kink or
> whether it's a gradual arc.

Hmmm... It actually does matter how much time is spent on
acceleration or coasting. If claimed otherwise by you, please show
the math from both twins’ points of view. If not, then please shut
the f*ck up.

> That would be the reason for mentioning both GPS and the example that
> Einstein actually cited in his original paper, both of which feature
> gradual arcs in the world lines.

GPS actually disproves SR. On top of that, you still owe me an answer
why the time dilation of GR contributes to red shift in light while
the time dilation of SR manifests red shift instead.

> There is only one question for you: Why is it that you consistently
> think that completely irrelevant details should suddenly become the
> focus of attention for physicists, just because you've managed to
> latch onto irrelevancies?

<shrug> Please answer your own question on yourself first.

> > I think it's amazing that anyone who ridicules your god is labeled an
> > idiot, an uninformed idiot and a fastidiously perpetually uninformed
> > idiot.
>
> No, I don't do that for anyone, regardless whether they ridicule my
> god or Einstein or both. Only you, because YOU are an idiot, an
> uninformed idiot, and a fastidiously perpetually uninformed idiot. You
> know that phrase: Don't take it personally? That comment you should
> take personally.

Right, keep on labeling everyone disagreeing with your pathetic
education as idiots. <shrug> This is not a typical trait of
professors I know. <shrug>

On Jul 24, 1:55***am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...***gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:30 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 11:54 pm, Shubee wrote:
> > > And that doesn't answer the twin paradox, and physicists know that,
> > > which is why Einstein's embarrassing paper is never parroted as an
> > > authoritative answer to silence critics.
>
> > It doesn't need to be parroted and there are no credible critics to
> > silence, though there are a number of incredible critics to mock.
>
> It is absolutely unbelievable that a stupid comment like the above
> would come from a professor of physics. ***Oh, well. ***Pathetic life
> marches on.

I certainly invite you to list some names of people you consider to be
credible critics.

>
> > > The subject is the twin paradox in special relativity. There is only
> > > one question. How brainless do physicists have to be to not realize
> > > that the acceleration and deceleration of a traveling twin only
> > > requires a negligible amount of time?
>
> > Rhetorical question. The amount of time spent in the acceleration and
> > deceleration is *completely* irrelevant to the teaching puzzle. The
> > fact that the world line is not straight is what matters. It doesn't
> > matter whether it's two straight legs with a rather abrupt kink or
> > whether it's a gradual arc.
>
> Hmmm... ***It actually does matter how much time is spent on
> acceleration or coasting. ***If claimed otherwise by you, please show
> the math from both twins’ points of view. ***If not, then please shut
> the f*ck up.

Since the math has been rendered several other places already, it is
more efficient for me to direct you to a place where you can look it
the f*ck up yourself, rather than to suffer your demands to be spoon-
fed like a baby bird. Since the discussion surrounding it is also
pertinent and illuminating, I will suggest first the chapter on the
structure of spacetime (it's a little more than halfway in) in Roger
Penrose's book, The Road to Reality. There he does exactly what you
are looking for. Happy self-educating!

>
> > That would be the reason for mentioning both GPS and the example that
> > Einstein actually cited in his original paper, both of which feature
> > gradual arcs in the world lines.
>
> GPS actually disproves SR.

:>)

>***On top of that, you still owe me an answer
> why the time dilation of GR contributes to red shift in light while
> the time dilation of SR manifests red shift instead.
>
> > There is only one question for you: Why is it that you consistently
> > think that completely irrelevant details should suddenly become the
> > focus of attention for physicists, just because you've managed to
> > latch onto irrelevancies?
>
> <shrug> ***Please answer your own question on yourself first.
>
> > > I think it's amazing that anyone who ridicules your god is labeled an
> > > idiot, an uninformed idiot and a fastidiously perpetually uninformed
> > > idiot.
>
> > No, I don't do that for anyone, regardless whether they ridicule my
> > god or Einstein or both. Only you, because YOU are an idiot, an
> > uninformed idiot, and a fastidiously perpetually uninformed idiot. You
> > know that phrase: Don't take it personally? That comment you should
> > take personally.
>
> Right, keep on labeling everyone disagreeing with your pathetic
> education as idiots.

It is not the disagreement with my education that produces the label.
It is the method by which you arrive at the disagreement that is
idiotic:
- your refusal to *study* that which you intend to oppose
- your complete disregard for experimental evidence
- your overriding, emotional desire to overcome your feelings of
inadequacy as an engineer by taking physicists down a peg.
If you managed to reverse these idiotic behaviors and *still*
disagreed with relativity, then you would be doing so from a less
idiotic position.

>***<shrug> ***This is not a typical trait of
> professors I know. ***<shrug>

On 23 Jul, 17:53, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:26***pm, hwabnig*** .- --- -. dotat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
>
> > <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> > >"On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
> > >Unnikrishnan
>
> > From there:
> > Planck’s assertion2 that there is no physical method
> > of measurement of the velocity of motion through space
> > is made void by the various markers available in cosmology,
> > especially the dipole anisotropy of the CMBR.
> > end cit.
>
> > When did Planck live?
> > When was CMBR measured?
> > How good are those measurements?
> > How do we calibrate our speedometers then?
> > Interstellar matter does have -what- influence or none?
>
> > Where are the "various markers available"?
> > What are our coordinates in the Universe?
> > Where is the Universe Point Zero ?
> > Where can I buy a "Universe Positioning System"?
>
> > Please Pentcho, ask Unnikrishnan.
>
> I don't care about Unnikrishnan. Unnikrishnan is innocent. He did not
> destroy rationality in science. Einstein did (rather, finished what
> Clausius had already started):
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/433218a.html
> John Barrow in the journal Nature: "Einstein restored faith in the
> unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done
> something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody
> could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for
> a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the
> mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly
> impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they
> cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to
> observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that
> appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal
> of the mysterious."
>
> http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
>
A RATIONAL point has been made about double stars. How are you going
to meet it? Or perhaps you, like others of your ilk are going to slur.
Perhaps they are no double stars. Perhaps astronomers just see double.


- Ian Parker