Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 345 of 345
Like Tree49Likes

Thread: Twin Paradox, Doppler Effect and the Symmetry

  1. #301  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Collective minds or simply flocking?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #302  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Ignorance or crackpot trolling?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #303  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    By the same principle as you are even allowed here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #304  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Whatever crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #305  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    I am not arguing at all against all the minds that developed the theory, I am arguing against those like yourself who misunderstand and especially with the fact that you don't realize it.
    What specifically did I say that was wrong?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #306  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    Wikipedia is saying exactly what I have been saying, meaning, when you are in the rocket, you are at rest with respect to rocket's clock, and time dilation occurs on Earth's time - again symmetry.
    This is true only so long as both frames are purely inertial - which is not the case if the rocket returns to earth.

    Also, I don't know how many more times I have to remind all of you of the acceleration I defined infinite times already.
    I have not seen any definition of acceleration from you; in any case, we don't need you to re-define it, since an appropriate and correct definition already exists in the context of relativity - the covariant derivative of 4-velocity with respect to proper time. As shown to you on numerous occasions, in both text and maths.

    Also, one more time, read about the Loaf Model of Space Time, and why they had to come up with that model.
    We are not interested in personal theories, only in science.

    I am not arguing at all against all the minds that developed the theory
    Yes you do, by blatantly saying that GR is in fact wrong.

    I am arguing against those like yourself who misunderstand and especially with the fact that you don't realize it.
    There is no interpretive layer to any of this. It is basic physics, and quite rigorous.

    Also, what you are saying is that it was wrong for Columbus to say the Earth was round.
    No. What we are saying is that acceleration is the covariant derivative of 4-velocity, as demonstrated. All conclusions follow from this through straightforward maths. Attempting to compare yourself to Columbus will not help your case.

    Are you guys too young and arrogant to absorb, or too old and senile?
    Neither. We just know enough to tell nonsense from actual science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #307  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Why is this ignorant troll (and his imaginary friends) tolerated?
    I have thus far tolerated this strictly because of the educational value in KJW's responses, which, I am sure, many a casual reader will find informative and enlightening. Rest assured though that there are limits as to how many times I will let this go around in circles.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #308  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    Also, what you are saying is that it was wrong for Columbus to say the Earth was round.
    No. What we are saying is that acceleration is the covariant derivative of 4-velocity, as demonstrated. All conclusions follow from this through straightforward maths. Attempting to compare yourself to Columbus will not help your case.
    Besides, Columbus was wrong. Columbus' argument never was that the world was round, as this was a well accepted fact at the time. His contention was that the circumference was smaller than the accepted figure, which led him to believe that he could sail to directly to India and establish a quicker trade route. Columbus also never accepted that he had actually encountered a new continent, and believed to the day he died that he had sailed to the Indies.
    Markus Hanke and KJW like this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #309  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I think it is about time to put this thread out of its misery, by performing an actual calculation of the scenario. So let's say we have a clock stationary somewhere very far away from a massive body such as a black hole; we then have another clock ( initially at rest with clock A ) which we send into free fall on a type-D orbit, so that it orbits the black hole once and returns to the original point of origin, where we compare the readings. Both clocks are in free fall throughout the entire experiment ( ignore the tiny "nudge" we need to give clock B to send it away into free fall ). According to our friend tachyon1, these frames are symmetric, so the recorded times should be the exact same. Well, when the numbers are done this is what we get :



    The explicit calculation can be found here. As is immediately obvious, even though both clocks are in free fall throughout, their readings do not agree when they meet again at the end of the experiment. This establishes clearly that these frames aren't symmetric, despite the free fall, so tachyon1 is wrong, as we have been saying all along.

    I hope we can put this to rest now, since it was getting pretty repetitive and tiresome.
    John Galt, KJW and Daecon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #310  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9
    To whom It may concern:

    I spent a few years on a couple of sites inhabited mostly by anti-relativists. I was treated to the same kind of name-calling I see here from relativists. It's not pretty sight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #311  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    I am not arguing at all against all the minds that developed the theory, I am arguing against those like yourself who misunderstand and especially with the fact that you don't realize it.
    What specifically did I say that was wrong?
    KJW - you are not really wrong but you try very hard to join those who have no understanding, meaning that your understanding is not upon a solid ground. All my statements are never of an anti-relativist, I am one of those who firmly believe in relativity and also the integration of relativity with Quantum Mechanics (I have achieved a lot in this area), therefore spent decades on understanding relativity correctly and precisely.

    I had some wine and that is the only reason I am writing a few lines tonight. Otherwise, I see no value wasting my time here with youngsters like yourselves. I have mature colleagues, and waste no time sharing correct understanding with - more than 30 seconds in a topic like this is a wasted time. My math is a bit short (not short at at all in a professional standard) compared to my colleagues who writes math in sleep, not a copy-paste) - definitely not you guys.

    If you do not understand the symmetry and the loaf model of space-time by now, goodbye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #312  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Markus - you try too hard to look good but to a professional eye, you are just a bluff. I am tired of this slur filled site. Name one person who can't copy-paste what's out there. You have no understanding of the "proper time". how can I ever get to the next step with you guys? Goodbye!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #313  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Relativity is not about copy-pasting formulae, it is all about dynamic thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #314  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    This site, .... two thumbs down!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #315  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    Markus - you try too hard to look good but to a professional eye, you are just a bluff. I am tired of this slur filled site. Name one person who can't copy-paste what's out there. You have no understanding of the "proper time". how can I ever get to the next step with you guys? Goodbye!
    Don't let the browser hit you on the ASCII on the way out.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #316  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Daecon - what are you suggesting? Stay in this topic until I gather enough mature audience?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #317  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    I think "do not agree" represents symmetry - if they agree, there is no symmetry. Are you retarded? Symetry does not mean equal, it means the observation is symmetrical from each to one another. I view your clock dilated and so do you on mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #318  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Markus, indeed, I have never seen such a stupid man like you - I never indicated "same" is symmetry, indeed the opposite is true for symmetry. Read through my topic and read from the very beginning, where did I mention that symmetry means "same"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #319  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    It's seems to me that you're trying to convince people of the validity of your claims by using argument and debate, instead of education and enlightenment.

    You can't simply demand that people accept your information as being correct, you need to demonstrate and teach them both how and why what you're saying is true.

    However, you should also be open to the possibility that you yourself may be the one who is mistaken, and that education is a two-way street. You need to be open to the possibility of being taught about both how and why what you're saying is false.

    Can you demonstrate that the claims of the other person are false without a "because I say so" approach?

    Remember, science isn't a process of debating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #320  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    WOW - a truly amazing site, filled with momkeys.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #321  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Daecon, read from the beginning. How many more times do I have to make logical statements? You people started slurr, not me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #322  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Your statements may be logical, but they may not necessarily be sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #323  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    cincirob - unfortunately, they started and they persistently stayed this way. I am sick of this type of site. All my logical sttements are from the beginning of this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #324  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Daecon, do you know Relativity at all? Also, did you read from the beginning of this topic? They constantly attacked me in a very barbaric way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #325  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Jamus, you know the point, why argue?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #326  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Markus - you try too hard to look good but to a professional eye, you are just a bluff.
    This site, .... two thumbs down!
    Markus, indeed, I have never seen such a stupid man like you
    WOW - a truly amazing site, filled with momkeys.
    I had some wine and that is the only reason I am writing a few lines tonight.
    Evidently, you should have thought twice before posting these particular posts, or alternatively cut out the wine. Either way, the above comments definitely do not reflect very well on you.

    Symetry does not mean equal, it means the observation is symmetrical from each to one another.
    Except that it isn't. The proper times on the two clocks don't agree, making the frames physically distinguishable, and hence not symmetric.

    I am sick of this type of site.
    Goodbye!
    Yet you keep posting.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; January 18th, 2014 at 06:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #327  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    KJW - you are not really wrong but you try very hard to join those who have no understanding, meaning that your understanding is not upon a solid ground.
    This really had me in stitches
    If only he knew.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #328  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    How many more times do I have to make logical statements?
    "Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence."
    John Galt and Markus Hanke like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #329  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I think it is about time to put this thread out of its misery, by performing an actual calculation of the scenario. So let's say we have a clock stationary somewhere very far away from a massive body such as a black hole; we then have another clock ( initially at rest with clock A ) which we send into free fall on a type-D orbit, so that it orbits the black hole once and returns to the original point of origin, where we compare the readings. Both clocks are in free fall throughout the entire experiment ( ignore the tiny "nudge" we need to give clock B to send it away into free fall ). According to our friend tachyon1, these frames are symmetric, so the recorded times should be the exact same. Well, when the numbers are done this is what we get :



    The explicit calculation can be found here. As is immediately obvious, even though both clocks are in free fall throughout, their readings do not agree when they meet again at the end of the experiment. This establishes clearly that these frames aren't symmetric, despite the free fall, so tachyon1 is wrong, as we have been saying all along.

    I hope we can put this to rest now, since it was getting pretty repetitive and tiresome.

    I agree this conversation has gone a filthy way especially because of an arrogant individual like yourself - once again, we can't conclude in the end whether the rocket had time dilated or the Earth had time dilated when they meet because both has gone through potential variances - read from the beginning of my statements. I stated everything clearly and consistently. I don't want to and I don't need to repeat the definition of accelerations and what is symmetry here again. In Tensor, "" and "v" are swappable, either through the entire equation or partially. It took 3 seconds (to the exact) for my coleague to say "it just means symmetry", meaning the rocket and Earth time dilation all depends on who whent through more potential variances. There is no change in my scenario to represent the realistic situation. .... Mr. knuckle head
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #330  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    I agree this conversation has gone a filthy way especially because of an arrogant individual like yourself
    Mr. knuckle head
    Why don't we let the other readers here be the judge of who is the arrogant "knuckle head", shall we

    In Tensor, "" and "v" are swappable,
    And what tensor would that be, exactly, and how does it relate to the scenario in question ?
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #331  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Markus, it is obvious that you have been copy-pasting all along, I see it very clearly. If you spend more than 3 seconds to state the "symmetry", which I have been way too generous about you, you have failed. In Wall Street, it doesn't matter how you deliver the product, all products are due "yesterday" and if you do not meet this criterion, you get laid off. Your understanding takes 2 million years, so you will never make it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #332  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    And what tensor would that be, exactly, and how does it relate to the scenario in question ?
    Markus, it is obvious that you have been copy-pasting all along, I see it very clearly. If you spend more than 3 seconds to state the "symmetry", which I have been way too generous about you, you have failed. In Wall Street, it doesn't matter how you deliver the product, all products are due "yesterday" and if you do not meet this criterion, you get laid off. Your understanding takes 2 million years, so you will never make it.
    Since you are unable to answer Markus' question, maybe you could ask one of your 'colleagues' to answer it?
    It should only take them 3 seconds.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #333  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    Markus, it is obvious that you have been copy-pasting all along, I see it very clearly. If you spend more than 3 seconds to state the "symmetry", which I have been way too generous about you, you have failed. In Wall Street, it doesn't matter how you deliver the product, all products are due "yesterday" and if you do not meet this criterion, you get laid off. Your understanding takes 2 million years, so you will never make it.
    Actually, I'd be much more interested in hearing your views about which tensor it is you were referring to, how that tensor relates to the scenario in question, and how symmetry between its indices implies symmetry between two frames in space-time. That should indeed be an interesting discussion, and since you are a doctor of physics, and I am just doing copy-and-paste, you really shouldn't find it very difficult to expose my ignorance on the matter of tensors, symmetries and frames, wouldn't you think
    Daecon and nnunn like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #334  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    Some claim that the Twin Paradox is explained by the fact that that the Symmetry is broken when taking the relative Doppler Shift into a consideration.
    The symmetry is broken due to the fact that one twin accelerates, the other one doesn't. Nothing to do with any Doppler effect.
    Actually, the rocket changes frames of reference several times: When departing earth, when turning about in space, and when arriving back at earth. If we assume those "turns" are instantaneous, the observer in the rocket will see the celestial bodies "shift" instantly each time. The observer on earth remains in his own frame, and does not observe any shift in the bodies.

    Another thing to consider in analyzing relativity paradoxes: Two observers cannot "synchronize watches" unless they are either in the same frame of reference, or they happen to meet in the same place at the same time. In fact, the same conditions must be met for observers to "compare" watches.
    SpeedFreek and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #335  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by bsaucer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    Some claim that the Twin Paradox is explained by the fact that that the Symmetry is broken when taking the relative Doppler Shift into a consideration.
    The symmetry is broken due to the fact that one twin accelerates, the other one doesn't. Nothing to do with any Doppler effect.
    Actually, the rocket changes frames of reference several times: When departing earth, when turning about in space, and when arriving back at earth. If we assume those "turns" are instantaneous, the observer in the rocket will see the celestial bodies "shift" instantly each time. The observer on earth remains in his own frame, and does not observe any shift in the bodies.

    Another thing to consider in analyzing relativity paradoxes: Two observers cannot "synchronize watches" unless they are either in the same frame of reference, or they happen to meet in the same place at the same time. In fact, the same conditions must be met for observers to "compare" watches.
    ,'''''''''''''''''''


    Buddy, you are just another knucklehead. Except for th booster acceleration, which is the non-inertial acceleration, with respect to Earth, rocket does what you say it does, but by the law of symmetry (please learn Tensor Analysis, it is all about symmetry), Earth does the same with respect to rocket. Can I talk to a human rather than a bunch of monkeys?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #336  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Oh. You're back. And still as charming as ever, I see.

    Splendid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #337  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    I didn't plan to be back, but I had too much free time. Sorry, I should have left the knuckleheads alone. Well, this forum is not where I can share my thoughts anyway, just a kiddish poopy pot. You may poop, but I don't poop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #338  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #339  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    bsaucer - please read from the beginning and catch my whole point. You are repeating the same question for two trillionth time that I gave answer to all your predecessors. You all deserve to be on the Guiness Book for being like yourselves.

    I was clealing up my inbox, and I saw your e-mails, that's why I am responding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #340  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    Buddy, you are just another knucklehead.
    Speaking to yourself is often a sign of a mental disorder. You should get that checked out asap.

    Except for th booster acceleration, which is the non-inertial acceleration, with respect to Earth, rocket does what you say it does, but by the law of symmetry (please learn Tensor Analysis, it is all about symmetry), Earth does the same with respect to rocket.
    Repeating a wrong statement does not convert it into a correct statement. There is a very simple experiment that shows your statement to be wrong. It's already been presented to you (several times, I believe), but you ignore it. It's this: Put an accelerometer on earth. Look at its readings while the rocket travels on its path. Put an accelerometer on the rocket. Look at its readings while the rocket travels on its path. Do these read the same? Obviously not.

    You simply assumed that there exists a so-called "law" of symmetry, and then you compound this illogic by attempting to use this unproven (and incorrect) "law" to prove something that isn't true. You've misunderstood a principle that applies to inertial frames and simply declared by fiat that this principle applies to all frames. It does not, as the experiment shows.

    Reading your posts is amusing. And a little sad.
    Markus Hanke and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #341  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Comment: tachyon1, my knowledge of relativity is some levels below what you assign to the 'knuckleheads'. My skill set is different. I have an excellent record in assessing character and sniffing out truth, or delusion. I have observed here interchanges between yourself and a diverse group of other members that include Markus Hanke, tk421, Strange, Speedfreek, Janus, KJW and xyzt. I have observed the posts of these seven members over a number of years and have developed a sound respect for each of them, based upon the logic and integrity of their posts. I have observed them disagree with each other on matters and agree too. So, when I witness seven individuals who have gained my respect agreeing that there are errors in your thinking, it does not take me long to decide who is likely right and who is likely wrong. Now, I don't think you are lying, but I do think you are probably deluding yourself.

    I also note that when these individuals are challenged on a point they have made, they address the challenge directly. I find no instances (point them out to me if you think they are there) where you have responded to the direct evidence or argument they have used to challenge your view. Instead you just repeat your assertions. I find this approach is untrustworthy and it would, even in the absence of the first point, raise serious doubts in my mind.

    Thirdly, you make the claim that the slurs were started by others. True if you consider the remark by Dywydyrr, but the Duck would slur his own mother if she was late laying an egg. The first real slur, appears to be a rather snide implicit dig at Markus.

    "Hey, at last, some body has a correct understanding. Do you know how long it took me to find a person like you? ... 30 years, not that others have zero understanding.
    Like I said, my math is rusty and I lack time due to my profession in a different field, while it takes devoted hours to put out precise mathematical expression, not a copy-paste version form the internet that makes you look professional."

    On balance, then, I conclude that you are very likely mistaken in your assertions.
    That being the case (and even if it isn't), if you intend to continue here, you will follow these two rules:

    1. You will not disparage any member, regardless of provocation.
    2. You will respond directly, clearly and completely to any post that asserts to show your errors.

    These rules are not negotiable.

    To all other members, there will be no personal comments, implicit or explicit about tachyon1.


    Thank you.


    JG
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #342  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Comment: tachyon1, my knowledge of relativity is some levels below what you assign to the 'knuckleheads'. My skill set is different. I have an excellent record in assessing character and sniffing out truth, or delusion. I have observed here interchanges between yourself and a diverse group of other members that include Markus Hanke, tk421, Strange, Speedfreek, Janus, KJW and xyzt. I have observed the posts of these seven members over a number of years and have developed a sound respect for each of them, based upon the logic and integrity of their posts. I have observed them disagree with each other on matters and agree too. So, when I witness seven individuals who have gained my respect agreeing that there are errors in your thinking, it does not take me long to decide who is likely right and who is likely wrong. Now, I don't think you are lying, but I do think you are probably deluding yourself.

    I also note that when these individuals are challenged on a point they have made, they address the challenge directly. I find no instances (point them out to me if you think they are there) where you have responded to the direct evidence or argument they have used to challenge your view. Instead you just repeat your assertions. I find this approach is untrustworthy and it would, even in the absence of the first point, raise serious doubts in my mind.

    Thirdly, you make the claim that the slurs were started by others. True if you consider the remark by Dywydyrr, but the Duck would slur his own mother if she was late laying an egg. The first real slur, appears to be a rather snide implicit dig at Markus.

    "Hey, at last, some body has a correct understanding. Do you know how long it took me to find a person like you? ... 30 years, not that others have zero understanding.
    Like I said, my math is rusty and I lack time due to my profession in a different field, while it takes devoted hours to put out precise mathematical expression, not a copy-paste version form the internet that makes you look professional."

    On balance, then, I conclude that you are very likely mistaken in your assertions.
    That being the case (and even if it isn't), if you intend to continue here, you will follow these two rules:

    1. You will not disparage any member, regardless of provocation.
    2. You will respond directly, clearly and completely to any post that asserts to show your errors.

    These rules are not negotiable.

    To all other members, there will be no personal comments, implicit or explicit about tachyon1.


    Thank you.


    JG
    You are just another slur, I did not start slur buddy. I had to repeat because you knuckleheads were repeating first. "upsilon" and "mu" are interchangeable, meaning "symmetry" any educated scientist knows this. Read through Wikipedia, it clearly says "the clock you carry with you is the fastest clock" I am only responding because I was cleaning up my inbox. My colleagues are very educated and they understand in split second, I wonder what happened to your brains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #343  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    "upsilon" and "mu" are interchangeable, meaning "symmetry" any educated scientist knows this.
    Symmetry between indices of a tensor ( you have yet to state which tensor it actually is you are referring to ) is not the same concept as symmetry or lack thereof between spatially separated frames in a curved space-time. In fact, any rank-2 tensor can be split into a symmetric and an anti-symmetric part :



    This has nothing to do with observers and frames of reference, it is simply tensor algebra.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #344  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    My colleagues are very educated and they understand in split second
    You have already shown that your "colleagues" don't exist. You made them up in an attempt to lend support to your claims.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #345  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    You are just another slur, I did not start slur buddy. I had to repeat because you knuckleheads were repeating first. "upsilon" and "mu" are interchangeable, meaning "symmetry" any educated scientist knows this. Read through Wikipedia, it clearly says "the clock you carry with you is the fastest clock" I am only responding because I was cleaning up my inbox. My colleagues are very educated and they understand in split second, I wonder what happened to your brains.
    Moderator Action: In this post you combine inaccuracy (I have demonstrated that you began the slurs) with impoliteness (I explicitly instructed you not to disparage members). Enjoy your two week suspension. If you return the same rules will be in force, but the suspension will be longer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Twin's Paradox
    By chinglu in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: August 25th, 2012, 06:34 AM
  2. The Twin Paradox
    By Booms in forum Physics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 6th, 2009, 07:21 AM
  3. Twin paradox
    By EV33 in forum Physics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: June 30th, 2009, 07:24 PM
  4. Twin Paradox
    By Sreeja in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 17th, 2008, 11:41 AM
  5. Question Concerning the Twin Paradox
    By Stuart Thomson in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 11th, 2008, 03:12 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •