THE EINSTEIN REVOLUTION

[Pentcho Valev]

In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running slow - this is what validly follows from the two postulates), it is still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the moving one (this does not follow at all from the two postulates):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly, they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking impliciations of Einstein's blatant hoax (time travel into the future etc.) enchanted the public... and so Einstein's "revolution" began:

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

I have started the same discussion here (although someone seems to be trying to delete my comment):

The Einstein Revolution

Pentcho Valev

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is
symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running slow - this is
what validly follows from the two postulates), it is still asymmetrical -
the stationary clock runs faster than the moving one (this does not follow

Prevaricating Pentcho keeps repeating his false claim over and over like an
old cow chewing its cud. No matter how many times he regurgitates this bull,
he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the "stationary" clock
"runs faster" and conveniently hides the fact that, although "time dilation"
is symmetrical, acceleration is NOT. The two parties cannot compare clocks
unless they are together, but they cannot be together twice without one of
them undergoing acceleration.

Pentcho has had this explained to him several times, but he willfully
persists in speading his lies. He has neither honor nor integrity, and he
is a fool.

Post by Pentcho Valev
This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly,
they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking
impliciations of Einstein's blatant hoax (time travel into the future etc.)
enchanted the public...

Silly lying Pentcho! He doesn't understand that HE is time traveling into
the future and did so even as he wrote this piece of offal. :-)))

Post by Pentcho Valev
I have started the same discussion here (although someone seems to be trying
http://youtu.be/8ch7TyASivA
The Einstein Revolution
Pentcho Valev

Who would even WANT to see Prevaricating Pentcho tell more lies? If Worf
saw him, he would kill him where he stood for his dishonorable existence.

Gary

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Pentcho Valev
In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time
dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running
slow - this is what validly follows from the two postulates), it is
still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the moving

Prevaricating Pentcho keeps repeating his false claim over and over like
an old cow chewing its cud. No matter how many times he regurgitates
this bull, he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the

Who asked you about this totally irrelevant stuff, putted together into
such a nonsensical ungrammatical English-challenged sentence, Harnagel?
Is it how you inlet a discussion, Harnagel? (What the hell is this for a
stupid name, Harnagel??)

Prevaricating Harnagel keeps repeating his false claim over and over like
an old cow chewing its cud. No matter how many times he regurgitates
this bull, he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the

Post by Gary Harnagel
"stationary" clock "runs faster" and conveniently hides the fact that,
although "time dilation"
is symmetrical, acceleration is NOT. The two parties cannot compare
clocks unless they are together, but they cannot be together twice
without one of them undergoing acceleration.

Has nothing to do with acceleration. Who told you that it has? Also, you
forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run faster, how it
registers more ticks than a travelling clock??

aHmmm, Harnagel? You already feel cornered? How sad, such a pretty
darling like you, Harnagel!

Post by Gary Harnagel
Pentcho has had this explained to him several times, but he willfully
persists in speading his lies. He has neither honor nor integrity, and
he is a fool.

Why aren't you addressing him directly? Why are you lying acting as you
were talking to somebody else? Hmmm, Harnagel?

[JanPB]

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
Also, you
forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run faster, how it
registers more ticks than a travelling clock??

Hahahaha! And THESE are people who pontificate about relativity. Amazing.

--
Jan

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by JanPB

Also, you forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run
faster, how it registers more ticks than a travelling clock??

Hahahaha! And THESE are people who pontificate about relativity. Amazing.

Why won't you better inlet the description of the process, on the double,
if you are smarter than Harnagel (which is pretty sweet). Neither you nor
Harnagel explained anything. You two are just crying wolf like old ladies.

If the local is not run faster, nor the travelling is running slower, why
are they accumulated different numbered clock-seconds (chronological
(ordered) arrived equal timing events, ticks)?

Assume a time-driven system (timing is crucial) driven by two separate
identical clocks, a one local and the other is travelling.

According to you too pretty boys, this system will FAIL to function.
Please explain.

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by JanPB

Also, you forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run
faster, how it registers more ticks than a travelling clock??

Hahahaha! And THESE are people who pontificate about relativity. Amazing.

Why won't you better inlet the description of the process, on the
double, if you are smarter than Harnagel (which is pretty sweet).
Neither you nor Harnagel explained anything. You two are just crying
wolf like old ladies.
If the local is not run faster, nor the travelling is running slower,

read: If the local is not running faster

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
why are they accumulated different numbered clock-seconds (chronological

read: why are they accumulating different...

(just in case Harnagel is unable to fill in the blanks (as challenged))

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
(ordered) arrived equal timing events, ticks)?
Assume a time-driven system (timing is crucial) driven by two separate
identical clocks, a one local and the other is travelling.
According to you too pretty boys, this system will FAIL to function.
Please explain.

[Gary Harnagel]

Go pound sand you arrogant, willfully-ignorant, lame-brained. grammar-
challenged 'nym-shifting troll.

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by Gary Harnagel
Go pound sand you arrogant, willfully-ignorant, lame-brained. grammar-
challenged 'nym-shifting troll.

This stinking tongue speak home with your parents. You fail to behave
with a nice lady.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
if the local clock does not run faster, how it
registers more ticks than a travelling clock??

The twin paradox's twins have different ages when they rejoin for the very same
reason that two sides of a triangle are longer than the third side: the path
length between two specified points depends on the path taken between them. Note
this is a DIFFERENT geometrical property than "time dilation". For a timelike
object/observer/twin, elapsed proper time is the same as path length.

The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane.
But the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin
who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time
than the twin who traverses one.

Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of
how they might move, where they might be located, or what the geometry might be.


[You display the same disastrous combination of arrogance,
ignorance, and insulting behavior that Valev does (+ others).
Unless you clean up your act, I probably won't respond any more.]


Tom Roberts

[Marjorie Delarosa]

The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
traverses one.

Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
say 6h.

Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
regardless of how they might move, where they might be located, or what
the geometry might be.

You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?

[You display the same disastrous combination of arrogance,
ignorance, and insulting behavior that Valev does (+ others).
Unless you clean up your act, I probably won't respond any more.]

This would be an error. I was responding to the shameful insults directed
by Harnagel towards the honest Pentcho Valev. Pentcho is not insulting
anybody, Harnagel does. Go reread. Then you are insulting me right now,
threatening nice ladies by not responding any more.

It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the insulter
is promulgating relativity.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
traverses one.

Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
say 6h.

For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is in a
space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
regardless of how they might move, where they might be located, or what
the geometry might be.

You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?

The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the metric with a
minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates enter). Speaking loosely,
traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from the elapsed time. But not very
much for c<<c.

This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically -- learn how
by studying SR and the Lorentz group.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the insulter
is promulgating relativity.

I just responded to the way you wrote in earlier messages.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
say 6h.

For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is in a
space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean.

Rather than bullshitting which is cheap, why doesn't Tom show mathematically how this this mythical path can happen? <shrug>

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?

The geometry is not Euclidean.

Any geometry is a geometry. Labeling geometry with magical properties is not doing science. <shrug>

Post by Tom Roberts
The time coordinate enters into the metric with a minus sign (relative to
the way spatial coordinates enter).

The metric is just a connection/interpreation between an observation (coordinate system) and the reality (invariant geometry) as described by the following. <shrug>

** REALITY = INTERPRETATION * OBSERVATION

Where

** REALITY = THE INVARIANT GEOMETRY
** INTERPRETATION = THE METRIC
** OBSERVATION = THE CHOICE OF COORDINATE SYSTEM

In order to avoid the silly mathematical presentation of a negative geometry, the signature of the metric must be (+, -, - , -) not (-, +, +, +) as Tom has ignorantly claimed. <shrug>

Post by Tom Roberts
Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from the elapsed
time.

Even with SR equations, Tom still cannot escape the Newtonian outcome that the [physical] time is the [physical] distance divided by the [physical] speed. <shrug>

Post by Tom Roberts
This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically - learn
how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.

Where is this math again? <shrug>

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the insulter
is promulgating relativity.

I just responded to the way you wrote in earlier messages.

When Koobee Wublee disclosed the history of <shrug> where Koobee Wublee learnt the art of <shrug> from Tom the master of <shrug>, at first Tom had to confess to Koobee Wublee, as if Koobee Wublee was a priest, about the crime of <shrug> to intimidate others. Then, Tom began to give excuses as if Tom was on trial. Well, sooner or later, preaching bullshit would land Tom in that trial. <shrug>

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
traverses one.

Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
say 6h.

For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is
in a space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not
Euclidean.

So just by changing some rules in the middle of the game one can prove
anything.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?

The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from
the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.

Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.

Before that, let's stick consistent, which is (i) Distances cannot become
negative; (ii) Time cannot become negative either (arrow).

Post by Tom Roberts
This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically --
learn how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.

You first. Then save me the trouble, come back and show me what you did.
(I need the source code, disregard languages and platform dependency)

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the
insulter is promulgating relativity.

I just responded to the way you wrote in earlier messages.

This is a mistake. You need to read and evaluate what peoples are replying
at.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
traverses one.

Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
say 6h.

For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is
in a space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not
Euclidean.

So just by changing some rules in the middle of the game one can prove
anything.

Not at all! No rules "changed" -- this is SR and the geometry has always been
Minkowski; in a space-time plane that is hyperbolic.

Yes, this is different from Euclidean geometry. The "change" is from your naive
expectation of Euclidean geometry to the Minkowski geometry of SR. That's YOUR
problem, not mine.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?

The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from
the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.

Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

By "The time coordinate enters into the metric with a minus sign" I meant that
the time-time component of the metric, g_tt, is negative. But you probably don't
know what that means, which is why I phrased it the way I did.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
Before that, let's stick consistent,

_I_ have been consistent, but YOU keep attempting to apply Euclidean notions to
Minkowski geometry, and that MISAPPLICATION is inconsistent.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
which is (i) Distances cannot become
negative;

You are fixated on Euclidean geometry. In Minkowski geometry, the invariant
interval can indeed be negative. It is the closest analogy there is to distance
in Euclidean space, but it is not so very close.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
(ii) Time cannot become negative either (arrow).

Hmmm. A time coordinate can of course have negative values, it's just that no
timelike object can evolve to increasingly negative values.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by Tom Roberts
This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically --
learn how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.

You first. Then save me the trouble, come back and show me what you did.

Hopeless. You clearly don't understand the nomenclature, and I'm not about to
type in a book on SR. You need a textbook, such as:

Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
(I need the source code, disregard languages and platform dependency)

This is not software at all. This is physics. And you need understanding -- you
can't get that from code.


You cannot hope to play a Beethoven piano sonata without a
serious study of both the piano and music in general. You
cannot hope to understand modern physics without a serious
study of both mathematics and physics.


Tom Roberts

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by Tom Roberts
The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts"
from the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.

Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.

Post by Tom Roberts
By "The time coordinate enters into the metric with a minus sign" I
meant that the time-time component of the metric, g_tt, is negative. But
you probably don't know what that means, which is why I phrased it the
way I did.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
Before that, let's stick consistent,

_I_ have been consistent, but YOU keep attempting to apply Euclidean
notions to Minkowski geometry, and that MISAPPLICATION is inconsistent.

Not so. You begin cutting words in small pieces, like that imbecile
Harnagel shitlong does "promoting" relativity. It is painful seeing idiots
defending a theory they admittedly never will understand.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
which is (i) Distances cannot become negative;

You are fixated on Euclidean geometry. In Minkowski geometry, the
invariant interval can indeed be negative. It is the closest analogy
there is to distance in Euclidean space, but it is not so very close.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
(ii) Time cannot become negative either (arrow).

Hmmm. A time coordinate can of course have negative values, it's just
that no timelike object can evolve to increasingly negative values.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by Tom Roberts
This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically --
learn how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.

You first. Then save me the trouble, come back and show me what you did.

Hopeless. You clearly don't understand the nomenclature, and I'm not
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.

Nevertheless, it reveals that you do not understand Relativity, which may
be the guilt of the books you read, here "Tylor" and "Wheeler". They
seemingly didn't understood Relativity at the time they wrote the book you
bought. This explain the reason you are contaminated. The errors propagate
inside through a system and contaminate. You probably are already
contaminated.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
(I need the source code, disregard languages and platform dependency)

This is not software at all. This is physics. And you need understanding
-- you can't get that from code.
You cannot hope to play a Beethoven piano sonata without a serious
study of both the piano and music in general. You cannot hope to
understand modern physics without a serious study of both

mathematics

Post by Tom Roberts
and physics.

Therefore, you cannot understand a Mozart without being able readin the
nodes of a playing piano.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by Tom Roberts
The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts"
from the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.

Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.

Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the MATHEMATICAL
sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the metric.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
Nevertheless, it reveals that you do not understand Relativity, which may
be the guilt of the books you read, here "Tylor" and "Wheeler". They
seemingly didn't understood Relativity at the time they wrote the book you
bought. This explain the reason you are contaminated. The errors propagate
inside through a system and contaminate. You probably are already
contaminated.

Such claims are worthless as they come from a fool who doesn't know what "she"
doesn't know.

You OUGHT to be able to recognize that when you claim that everybody else
doesn't understand some complex technical subject, including recognized experts,
that more likely it is you who is at fault. Here it CLEARLY is.

If you really want to learn about modern physics, you must STUDY. It requires a
certain level of mathematical maturity, which you also lack. There is A LOT for
you to learn....

And a lot of arrogance to unlearn. Until you do, goodbye.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.

Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the MATHEMATICAL
sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the metric.

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
Nevertheless, it reveals that you do not understand Relativity, which may
be the guilt of the books you read, here "Tylor" and "Wheeler". They
seemingly didn't understood Relativity at the time they wrote the book you
bought. This explain the reason you are contaminated. The errors propagate
inside through a system and contaminate. You probably are already
contaminated.

Such claims are worthless as they come from a fool who doesn't know what "she"
doesn't know.
You OUGHT to be able to recognize that when you claim that everybody else
doesn't understand some complex technical subject, including recognized experts,
that more likely it is you who is at fault. Here it CLEARLY is.
If you really want to learn about modern physics, you must STUDY. It requires a
certain level of mathematical maturity, which you also lack. There is A LOT for
you to learn....
And a lot of arrogance to unlearn. Until you do, goodbye.

What did Tom just said? More bullshit. Does anyone fvcking care about more bullshit? <shrug>

Please allow Koobee Wublee ask Tom a more pertinent science related question. Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate and not the accumulated time itself? Does Tom understand what Tom chooses to bet its career on? Tom does not have to reply because Koobee Wublee knows Tom does not have a fvcking answer for that. That is OK. Since Koobee Wublee has given up on hopes of fvcking Einstein dingleberries able to understand the Twin paradox is about the issue of accumulated time and not fvcking clock ticking fvcking rate. <shrug>

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Koobee Wublee
Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate
and not the accumulated time itself?

Koobee Wublee is CLEARLY unable to read accurately.

I have REPEATEDLY stated around here that the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate
"time dilation" (observed clock ticking rate), but rather another geometrical
property: different paths between a given pair of points can have different path
lengths. Of course for timelike objects (such as twins), path length is
synonymous with accumulated proper time.

Indeed I stated this earlier in this thread. Perhaps his inability to read is
why Koobee Wublee is so stupid, and can only PRETEND to understand math and physics.

Post by Koobee Wublee
[... arrogance and misapplied insults omitted]

Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Koobee Wublee
Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate
and not the accumulated time itself?

I have REPEATEDLY stated around here that the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate
"time dilation" (observed clock ticking rate), but rather another geometrical
property: different paths between a given pair of points can have different path
lengths. Of course for timelike objects (such as twins), path length is
synonymous with accumulated proper time.

Tom is following Jan Bielaski's rules of preaching a religion down to the tee. <shrug>

First, Tom creates a straw man through the imaginary path that cannot be modeled by any mathematics or verified by experiments. <shrug>

Secondly, Tom divert attentions away from physical reality of time and distance that one can model and measure. <shrug>

Then, Tom invents lots of bullshit properties associated with this straw man again none of which can be mathematically modeled and experimentally verified. Of course, it helps to make Tom look like Tom knows what Tom is talking about by repeating the same bullshit over and over again. <shrug>

Lastly, Tom will attack anyone Tom disagrees with to protect Tom's straw man. <shrug>

Tom cannot even produce the mathematics to support its mythical paths of geodesics. Tom is truly a fake. <shrug>

[Cornelius Sheehan]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.

Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the
MATHEMATICAL sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the
metric.

Zowie what, you back-pedal. I don't believe a word in your plethora.
You've been registered saying that General Relativity is about "Fields",
as "Fields" erroneously stays in the name of that equation: ie "GR field
equation".

You made a beginner error, there are no fields present in Relativity, in
spite of using a wrong name, just to increase the level of sophistication.

Moreover, you've been asked to pinpoint the inputs to those tensors
present in that tensors equation. You chose to ignore and divert talking
about something else.

[Paul B. Andersen]

[..]

Changing your name and gender doesn't help,
the trolling idiot is recognised anyway.

plonk

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
if the local clock does not run faster, how it
registers more ticks than a travelling clock??

That is indeed a very great question. We thank the little sweet lady for raising that. In the meantime, we are going to be bombarded with bullshit from Einstein dingleberries. Let sort through the bullshit, shall we? <shrug>

Post by Tom Roberts
The twin paradox's twins have different ages when they rejoin for the very same
reason that two sides of a triangle are longer than the third side: the path
length between two specified points depends on the path taken between them. Note
this is a DIFFERENT geometrical property than "time dilation". For a timelike
object/observer/twin, elapsed proper time is the same as path length.

Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the relationship between distance and time. First, there should be no mystic meaning for the proper time. The proper time should and shall mean only the local time. Then, any measured velocity is still the distance divided by time. Finally, spacetime is a manmade symbolic construct which does not reflect anything reality can offer. Claiming one moves through spacetime is just so fvcking silly. The mathematics of SR only deals with time and space. When do these buffoons come up with all these bullshit? Just to make them look smart? They can only fool idiots. <shrug>

Post by Tom Roberts
Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of
how they might move, where they might be located, or what the geometry might be.

This is just not true. No mathematics supports this nonsense that Tom is preaching. <shrug>

Of course, what follows is personal attacks which is snipped due to its irrelevant content. <shrug>

[JanPB]

Post by Koobee Wublee

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Marjorie Delarosa
if the local clock does not run faster, how it
registers more ticks than a travelling clock??

That is indeed a very great question. We thank the little sweet lady for raising that. In the meantime, we are going to be bombarded with bullshit from Einstein dingleberries. Let sort through the bullshit, shall we? <shrug>

As usual, Koobee can be counted on to post nonsense and non-sequiturs.
Let's go through it, shall we?

Post by Koobee Wublee

Post by Tom Roberts
The twin paradox's twins have different ages when they rejoin for the very same
reason that two sides of a triangle are longer than the third side: the path
length between two specified points depends on the path taken between them. Note
this is a DIFFERENT geometrical property than "time dilation". For a timelike
object/observer/twin, elapsed proper time is the same as path length.

Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the relationship between distance and time.

Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing based
on nothing. Check.

Post by Koobee Wublee
First, there should be no mystic meaning for the proper time.

"Mystic meaning" of proper time is only in your head. Rule 2: invent
a strawman (e.g. "mystic meaning of proper time" and attack _it_ instead
of addressing the actual issue). Check.

Post by Koobee Wublee
The proper time should and shall mean only the local time.

Rule 3: Introduce undefined notions, like "local time". Replace with it
the actuall precisely defined notions like "proper time" (defined as the
integral of the arc length of timelike curves). This allows Koobee
replacing any serious discussion involving concepts he does not understand
with his own confabulations he can then proceed to spin any old way.

Post by Koobee Wublee
Then, any measured velocity is still the distance divided by time.

Rule 4: Continue inventing random definitions based on the aforementioned
undefined notions (see Rule 3). Also, see http://www.wikiart.org/en/rene-magritte/the-castle-of-the-pyrenees-1959 for a good representation.

Post by Koobee Wublee
Finally, spacetime is a manmade symbolic construct which does not reflect anything reality can offer.

Rule 5: Pretend relativity's approach to modelling physical reality
by math constructs is fundamentally different from that of all other
theories in physics (and therefore "deficient" by the unspoken
implication)

Post by Koobee Wublee
Claiming one moves through spacetime is just so fvcking silly. The mathematics of SR only deals with time and space. When do these buffoons come up with all these bullshit? Just to make them look smart? They can only fool idiots. <shrug>

Rule 6: Never forget about cheap rhetoric. Keep in mind that repeating
lies will eventually stick to weak brains.

Post by Koobee Wublee

Post by Tom Roberts
Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of
how they might move, where they might be located, or what the geometry might be.

This is just not true. No mathematics supports this nonsense that Tom is preaching. <shrug>

Rule 7: Also never forget flat-out lies do tend to work long-run on the
aforementioned brains.

Post by Koobee Wublee
Of course, what follows is personal attacks which is snipped due to its irrelevant content. <shrug>

Hahaha!

--
Jan

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by JanPB

Post by Koobee Wublee
Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the
relationship between distance and time.

Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing
based on nothing. Check.

You just do that. At the time Relativity was born, no measurements of time
dilation and length contraction were available nor possible. Not even
today. A length contraction is still illusory, then the time dilation
never is been detected by a direct measurement.

[JanPB]

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by JanPB

Post by Koobee Wublee
Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the
relationship between distance and time.

Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing
based on nothing. Check.

You just do that. At the time Relativity was born, no measurements of time
dilation and length contraction were available nor possible. Not even
today. A length contraction is still illusory, then the time dilation
never is been detected by a direct measurement.

That's not how science works.

--
Jan

[Marjorie Delarosa]

Post by JanPB

Post by Marjorie Delarosa

Post by JanPB
Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing
based on nothing. Check.

You just do that. At the time Relativity was born, no measurements of
time dilation and length contraction were available nor possible. Not
even today. A length contraction is still illusory, then the time
dilation never is been detected by a direct measurement.

That's not how science works.

Why it does then?

[Pentcho Valev]

Peter Galison: "He [Einstein] knew that the speed of light was something that was absolute."

How did Einstein know that? Actually he didn't - there was no evidence supporting the constancy of the speed of light (rather, any reliable evidence supported the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light). Einstein derived the false constancy from the Lorentz transforms, then called it "postulate" and finally, in his 1905 paper, derived the Lorentz transforms from the postulate (the gullible world was enraptured):

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/EDU_Einstein_ENGLISH.pdf
Albert Einstein, What Is The Theory Of Relativity? (November 28, 1919): "The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz."

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Special-Relativity-James-Smith/dp/048668895X
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

The speed of light is not absolute - rather, both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) VARY with the speed of the observer, as the following videos clearly show:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

Pentcho Valev

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://youtu.be/MHGxszX9WVc
Peter Galison: "He [Einstein] knew that the speed of light was something
that was absolute."
How did Einstein know that? Actually he didn't - there was no evidence
supporting the constancy of the speed of light

More crap from Pentcho's lying butt.

Post by Pentcho Valev
(rather, any reliable evidence supported the variable speed of light
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light).

More false emissions from Pentcho. NET was falsified by the speed of light
in ponderable media, by the Fizeau experiments, by starlight aberration and
by Maxwell's equations. This is why everyone at that time was claiming
light was a wave phenomenon. Pentcho is a very bad historian.

Post by Pentcho Valev
Einstein derived the false constancy from the Lorentz transforms,

More prevarication. Lorentz's theory presumed the speed of light was NOT
constant.

Post by Pentcho Valev
then called it "postulate" and finally, in his 1905 paper, derived the
....
The speed of light is not absolute - rather, both the frequency and the
speed of light (relative to the observer) VARY with the speed of the

Completely and clearly contrary to the experimental evidence.

"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He
created historians." -- Anonymous