🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 5, 4:14 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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!!!

You do not read very well. You claimed there was NO resolution of the
twin paradox that didn't rely on GR. I said there was, and then I
showed you where it is.

> 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 right, that's a pointer to where it is.

You can lead an ass to water, but you sure can't jam his nose in it
and force him to drink it.
The ass might even insist, standing right in front of the water, that
there isn't any water there.
But that's just being an ass, isn't it?

> That's not a proof.  That is
> ...
>
> read more »