🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 4, 1:38 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4 Maijs, 14:21, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 1:15 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > PV, it is all so simple.  Special Relativity (SR) is wrong.  General
> > > > > > > > > > > Relativity (GR) is based on SR.  If SR is wrong, it follows logically
> > > > > > > > > > > that GR is wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with SR?  The constancy of the speed of light in ANY
> > > > > > > > > > > reference frame is wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > First of all, SR doesn't claim it for ANY frame, only for inertial
> > > > > > > > > > reference frames.
>
> > > > > > > > > Still wrong...
>
> > > > > > > > > > Secondly, prove that it's wrong. It's your claim, back it up.
>
> > > > > > > > Prove that the constancy of speed of light in inertial reference
> > > > > > > > frames is wrong.
>
> > > > > > > Easy.  Constant lightspeed results in time dilation, which is
> > > > > > > mathematically untenable.
>
> > > > > > Prove this is mathematically untenable.
>
> > > > > > > You should know this by now, after years of unsuccessfully resolving
> > > > > > > the twin paradox.
>
> > > > > > What constitutes "success" of resolution, Strich9? What are your
> > > > > > criteria for a successful resolution?
>
> > > > > The twin paradox is a SR problem.
>
> > > > Yes.
>
> > > > >  Resolving it by using a GR solution
> > > > > will not convince anybody.  And there is no SR resolution.
>
> > > Nope there's none.
>
> > Do you often talk first, read second?
>
> > > > Of course there is. It's described in at least a dozen books without
> > > > GR. Do you need a reference? Try Penrose, The Road to Reality. It's
> > > > written for the untrained, even.
>
> > > Of course, you're welcome to show you're a chronic schizo.  Show us
> > > the twisted evidence :-)
>
> > I just gave it to you.
> > Here's the book. Do you need a page reference?http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776...
>
> Roger Penrose?
>
> BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> The guy talks from his arse
>
> BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> The same Penrose who has ludicrous ideas about the problem of
> consciousness
>
> BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> Penrose would not know his right hand from his left foot.
>
> BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> No self-respecting intellectual reads Penrose, unless to make fun of
> the guy.  Even then, it's not worthwhile.
>
> > Please tell me you're denying the book exists.
> > Please tell me you deny it has pages.
> > Please tell me the pages are all blank.
>
> No need.  Your lame reference is in the dustbin.
>
> As I said before, any SR resolution to the twin paradox does not
> exist, and the fact that Penrose, a proven idiot, pretends to have
> one, all the more supports the proposition that no SR resolution
> exists...
>
> Now if you said Feynman, Gell-mann or Ting had a resolution, then that
> deserves a look.  But Penrose?  Off all the idiocies.  The guy was
> just lucky enough to be born to a family of distinction...  Too bad,
> he was not as bright as Bertrand Russell...  who was also from a
> family of distinction.  Roger Penrose was just too well-off to be
> scrubbing toilets.  But in retrospect, that is what he should have
> been doing...

So let's recap, shall we?
You say the ONLY resolution of the twin paradox is one from GR and
therefore doesn't count as an SR resolution.
Since this is obviously incorrect, I pointed to a place where you can
find a non-GR resolution of the twin paradox, since you claimed there
IS NOT ONE.
Your only recourse at this point is to laugh like a hyena at the place
where there IS ONE, as though that changes the fact that there IS ONE.

You can throw anything you don't want to see in the dustbin. That
doesn't make them nonexistent.

If you think you are winning something here by being able to post
without ever having to say, "Uncle," I'd say you have rather low
ambitions in life, wouldn't you?

PD