🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Μάϊος, 16:48, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 1:57 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Maijs, 14:50, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 1:27 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 5 Maijs, 14:12, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 5, 12:45 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 5 Maijs, 13:06, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 5, 9:31 am, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 5 Maijs, 10:10, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 5, 9:01 am, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 5 Maijs, 09:42, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On May 5, 8:01 am, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Maijs, 17:50, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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- Paslçpt citçto tekstu -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Râdît citçto tekstu -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the Penrose pseudo-solution is correct nor elegant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Nice of you to make that judgment without looking at it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > As I said, if it was Feynman or Gell-mann, I'll look at it.  Even
> > > > > > > > > > Weinberg, Salam or Ting.  But Penrose, this guy is a modern day witch-
> > > > > > > > > > doctor...
>
> > > > > > > > > That's fine. Feynman and Weinberg both wrote about this.
> > > > > > > > > Ting hasn't written a book, so I'm not sure what you'd look at.
>
> > > > > > > > > For Feynman, you'll find it both in the Feynman Lectures on Physics
> > > > > > > > > and in Six Not-So-Easy Pieces.
>
> > > > > > > > > Happy reading.
>
> > > > > > > > Since you are the one claiming there is an SR resolution for the twin
> > > > > > > > paradox in one of these books, then why don't you reproduce it here.
>
> > > > > > > Because that would be a copyright violation.
> > > > > > > However, you did say:
> > > > > > > "Now if you said Feynman, Gell-mann or Ting had a resolution, then
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > deserves a look."
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > "As I said, if it was Feynman or Gell-mann, I'll look at it."
> > > > > > > Here's how you look at it:http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-including-Feynmans/dp/...
> > > > > > > andhttp://www.amazon.com/Six-Not-So-Easy-Pieces-Helix-Books/dp/020132842...
>
> > > > > > > In the second book, you can start reading about page 77.
>
> > > > > > > Happy reading!
>
> > > > > > I guess there goes your SR based proof of the twin paradox.
>
> > > > > > Chronic schizo, imagined references and notations are not acceptable
> > > > > > in science or reality.
>
> > > > > Oh, PLEASE tell me you think those books are imaginary.
> > > > > PLEASE tell me you don't think there is a page 77 to the second book.
> > > > > PLEASE tell me you are positive page 77 isn't about the twin paradox.
>
> > > > Well, we're still waiting for you to show the twin paradox proof
> > > > within the SR framework...
> > > > Well, we're still waiting for you to show the twin paradox proof
> > > > within the SR framework...
> > > > Well, we're still waiting for you to show the twin paradox proof
> > > > within the SR framework...
>
> > > > Show us!
>
> > > I did.
>
> > Where is it?
>

Schizo, you claimed you had a proof, show us!!!
Schizo, you claimed you had a proof, show us!!!
Schizo, you claimed you had a proof, show us!!!

> Right here:http://www.amazon.com/Six-Not-So-Easy-Pieces-Helix-Books/dp/020132842...
> starting at page 77.
>

That's not a proof.  That is merely a page number idiot.
That's not a proof.  That is merely a page number idiot.
That's not a proof.  That is merely a page number idiot.