🚀 go-pugleaf

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...