https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>
> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> solar system is measuring the length
> of solar day. What is the result predicted
> by the Einsteinian physics?
> One prediction is - 99766. From the
> postulates. The second prediction is -
> 86400. From definition.
> And similiarly with the prediction of
> a measurement of a meridian.
>
> Thank you for your attention, poor
> relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".

CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.

And the same idiotic conclusion applies for "length contraction".

On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
> show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
> at relative rest is taken for calculations.

Yes. For once you have written something that is correct.

> This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,

Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.

Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.
There is no contradiction.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:40:33 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > [for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
> > show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
> > at relative rest is taken for calculations.
> Yes. For once you have written something that is correct.
> > This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,
> Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.
>
> Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.
> There is no contradiction.
>
> Tom Roberts

Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

LAME: "This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, as a consequence of an incorrect[1][2] and naive[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less.
However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey..[5]"

EVEN MORE LAME: "Another way of looking at it is to realize the travelling twin is undergoing ACCELERATION, which makes him a non-inertial observer. In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins. Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction. THERE IS STILL DEBATE as to the resolution of the twin paradox.[6]"

So Tom, while this topic has been discussed for 100 years, for you such debate is senseless because you know better than half the relativists.

Good for you, even when you are wrong and accuse others of "not understanding". The problem is quite alive, being so old, but even a kid beats you debating.

On Monday, 6 November 2023 at 04:40:33 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > [for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
> > show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
> > at relative rest is taken for calculations.
> Yes. For once you have written something that is correct.
> > This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,
> Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.
>
> Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.

Screaming won't help, trash, anyone can check GPS, no,
they aren't. Of course, even if they were - it wouldn't change
the fact that the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, as proven above.

Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>
>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>> solar system is measuring the length
>> of solar day. What is the result predicted
>> by the Einsteinian physics?
>> One prediction is - 99766. From the
>> postulates. The second prediction is -
>> 86400. From definition.
>> And similiarly with the prediction of
>> a measurement of a meridian.
>>
>> Thank you for your attention, poor
>> relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
>
> More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
> "Time dilation"
> "Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
> give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
> Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
> give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
> Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
> of his own clock".
>
> CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.

Right!

>
> This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.

If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Can you find them and point them out?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 6 November 2023 at 10:59:06 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>
> >> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> >> solar system is measuring the length
> >> of solar day. What is the result predicted
> >> by the Einsteinian physics?
> >> One prediction is - 99766. From the
> >> postulates. The second prediction is -
> >> 86400. From definition.
> >> And similiarly with the prediction of
> >> a measurement of a meridian.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your attention, poor
> >> relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
> >
> > More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
> >
> > "Time dilation"
> > "Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
> > give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
> > Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
> > give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
> > Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
> > of his own clock".
> >
> > CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
> Right!
> >
> > This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
> If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:

There are and they're pointed above, poor fanatic trash.
Pretending you haven't noticed and changing the subject
won't save The Shit, at least not in the long term.

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:10:22 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> snip fresh imbecilities<

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:09:47 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

There is no paradox.

*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>
> >> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> >> solar system is measuring the length
> >> of solar day. What is the result predicted
> >> by the Einsteinian physics?
> >> One prediction is - 99766. From the
> >> postulates. The second prediction is -
> >> 86400. From definition.
> >> And similiarly with the prediction of
> >> a measurement of a meridian.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your attention, poor
> >> relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
> >
> > More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
> >
> > "Time dilation"
> > "Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
> > give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
> > Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
> > give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
> > Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
> > of his own clock".
> >
> > CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
> Right!
> >
> > This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
> If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>
> Can you find them and point them out?
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Frames origin separated by d = vt, after being synchronized when both origins are coincident (at t = 0).

Time elapsed AT ANY SELECTED relatively stationary reference frame: t = d/v.

PERCEPTION of the time elapsed at ANY SELECTED RELATIVELY MOVING reference frame: τ = γt.

Paul: "The symmetry is obvious".
Paul: "Which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?"
Paul: "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!"

NO, Paul, it is not.

As a typical relativist, you need to make muddy waters of an explanation, so you can display your lies and fallacies.

The problem couldn't be MORE SIMPLE, but you need to make the explanation as twisted and retorted as possible. It's similar to
the attitude of an eccentric "smart ass" who wants to scratch his left ear with his right arm, but passing it around its neck, instead
of using the left arm OR the right arm crossing his chest.

You have been assimilated by the relativistic doctrine, which is: make things as complicated as possible, to set a defense ground
for any refutation. With this technique, you'll always have the means to explain a simple thing in complex ways, abusing of fallacies
and, of course, deceptive assertions.

Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is better to die than to reason and concede.

The paradox is not that SR is a flawed metaphysical theory. The paradox, on you, is that being intelligent yet chose a stupid theory till the end,
and waste all your energy defending this crap.

It's exactly the behavior of A FANATIC in science, football, politics, history, etc.

Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>>
>>> More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>>>
>>> "Time dilation"
>>> "Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
>>> give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
>>> Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
>>> give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
>>> Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
>>> of his own clock".
>>>
>>> CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
>> Right!
>>>
>>> This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.

>> If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>>
>> Can you find them and point them out?
>>

Note: The question is NOT if SR is correct in the sense that
its predictions are consistent with measurement/observations.
This can't be proved.

The question is if SR is consistent, that is free of self contradictions.
That SR is consistent can be and is proved.

>
>
> Frames origin separated by d = vt, after being synchronized when both origins are coincident (at t = 0).
>
> Time elapsed AT ANY SELECTED relatively stationary reference frame: t = d/v.

Right. But let us express it more precisely.

_Everything below follows from the Lorentz transformation._

Below is the frame K' moving along the positive x-axis
of frame K at the speed v. Origins are aligned at t = t' = 0

-----
If you select frame K as "the stationary frame"
we have two events of interest,
Event E₀, the origins of the frames are aligned
Event E₁, the origin of K' is at x = d

E₀: In K, the coordinates of this event are: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
E₁: In K, the coordinates of this event are: x₁ = d, t₁ = d/v

Note that the times t = 0 and t = d/v are read off two
different coordinate clocks, one at x = 0 and one at x = d

------
If you select frame K' as "the stationary frame"
we have two events of interest,
Event E₀, the origins of the frames are aligned.
Event E₂, the origin of K is at x' = -d.

E₀: In K', the coordinates of this event are: x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
E₂: In K', the coordinates of this event are: x₂' = -d, t₂' = d/v

Note that the times t' = 0 and t' = d/v are read off two
different coordinate clocks, one at x' = 0 and one at x' =-d

----
You wrongly assume that E₁ and E₂ are the same event because
you think that t = t' for any event always.
But that is a postulate of NM (or Galilean Relativity),
it is NOT valid in SR.

>
> PERCEPTION of the time elapsed at ANY SELECTED RELATIVELY MOVING reference frame: τ = γt.

You probably meant τ = t/γ where γ = 1/√(1 −v²/c²)
This is 'kind of right'. Let's see:

-------
When K is the "stationary frame", K' is the "moving frame":
In K', the coordinates of E₀ are: x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
In K', the coordinates of E₁ are: x₁' = 0, t₁' = d/(vγ) = t₁/γ

Note that the times t₀' = 0 and t₁' = d/(vγ) are read off the same
coordinate clock, namely the one at the origin of K', x' = 0.
So the time (t₁'-t₀') = d/(vγ) is a proper time, τ' = d/(vγ) = t₁/γ

--------
When K' is the "stationary frame", K is the "moving frame":
In K, the coordinates of E₀ are: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
In K, the coordinates of E₂ are: x₂ = 0, t₂ = d/(vγ) = t₂'/γ

Note that the times t₀ = 0 and t₂ = d/(vγ) are read off the same
coordinate clock, namely the one at the origin of K, x = 0.
So the time (t₂-t₀) = d/(vγ) is a proper time τ = d/(vγ) = t₂/γ
-------------

Conclusion:
When K is "the stationary frame":
The clock at the origin of the "moving frame" K' will advance
τ'= d/(vγ) while the time (t₁-t₀)= d/v passes in K.
The time in the moving frame appears to run slow.

When K' is "the stationary frame":
The clock at the origin of the "moving frame" K will advance
τ = d/(vγ) while the time (t₁'-t₀')= d/v passes in K'.
The time in the moving frame appears to run slow.

>
> Paul: "The symmetry is obvious".
> Paul: "Which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?"
> Paul: "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!"
>
>
> NO, Paul, it is not.

What is not?

To prove that "The Shit" is inconsistent, you have to prove that
the Lorentz transformation (LT) is inconsistent.

That is, you must show that the mathematics of SR is inconsistent.

>
> As a typical relativist, you need to make muddy waters of an explanation, so you can display your lies and fallacies.
>
> The problem couldn't be MORE SIMPLE, but you need to make the explanation as twisted and retorted as possible. It's similar to
> the attitude of an eccentric "smart ass" who wants to scratch his left ear with his right arm, but passing it around its neck, instead
> of using the left arm OR the right arm crossing his chest.
>
> You have been assimilated by the relativistic doctrine, which is: make things as complicated as possible, to set a defense ground
> for any refutation. With this technique, you'll always have the means to explain a simple thing in complex ways, abusing of fallacies
> and, of course, deceptive assertions.

Your admission of your failure to understand the mathematics of SR
is hardly a proof of its inconsistency! :-D

>
> Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is better to die than to reason and concede.
>
> The paradox is not that SR is a flawed metaphysical theory. The paradox, on you, is that being intelligent yet chose a stupid theory till the end,
> and waste all your energy defending this crap.
>
> It's exactly the behavior of A FANATIC in science, football, politics, history, etc.

Repeating your opinion of SR won't do.

Do the mathematics that prove SR inconsistent, or shut up.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 15:33:31 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>>
> >>> More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
> >>>
> >>> "Time dilation"
> >>> "Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
> >>> give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
> >>> Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
> >>> give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
> >>> Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
> >>> of his own clock".
> >>>
> >>> CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
> >> Right!
> >>>
> >>> This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
>
> >> If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> >>
> >> Can you find them and point them out?
> >>
> Note: The question is NOT if SR is correct in the sense that
> its predictions are consistent with measurement/observations.
> This can't be proved.
>
> The question is if SR is consistent, that is free of self contradictions.
> That SR is consistent can be and is proved.

A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic trash. It's not
proven, it's actually proven oppositely - right above.

> To prove that "The Shit" is inconsistent, you have to prove that
> the Lorentz transformation (LT) is inconsistent.

Bull;shit. To prove that The Shit is inconsistent, I have to
point 2 claims/predictions denying each other, it's done.

> Your admission of your failure to understand the mathematics of SR

Is "SR" and "mathematics of SR" the same, poor halfbrain?

Le 07/11/2023 à 15:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:

>> Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
>> better to die than to reason and concede.

No, the theory of relativity is not a pseudo science.

It is a superb theory whose origin begins with Joseph Larmor and Henri
Poincaré at the end of the 19th century.

The immense problem (and it's sad) comes from the fact that the theory has
completely drifted, and that today, no one understands it anymore, it has
become so stupid.

Many people today say that you should throw it away, but that's just as
stupid.

You just need to purify it.

The problem is that we don't want to.

Some want to destroy it (cranks), others want to maintain it as an
acceptable ideology (Paul B.Andersen). Both are wrong.

I explained where the problems were coming from. The first problem is the
negation of Dr. Hachel's concept relating to the relativity of
simultaneity (very poorly understood by physicists), the second problem
concerns the refusal of the covariance of relativistic effects (which is a
shame) and the negation of Hachel's equation
L=L₀.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c), the third concerns the erroneous
calculation of proper times in accelerated frames of reference, and the
fourth is the calculation erroneous instantaneous speeds of relativistic
speeds in accelerated media,
because of a too easy, but stupid equation v=x/(tB-tA) that physicists
use, without understanding that in SR (accelerated) such behavior is
purely stupid.
So I explained the problem by saying that we had to take the right path,
and not diverge to the left (deny everything) or to the right (accept
everything).
I explained the four problems of the theory of special relativity.
I come up against stupidity, condescension, and general hardness.
I think that in this refusal to listen to me there exists a real religious
fanaticism as stupid as Muslim fanaticism.

Doctor Richard Hachel.

On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 16:10:15 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/11/2023 à 15:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> > Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> >> Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
> >> better to die than to reason and concede.
> No, the theory of relativity is not a pseudo science.
>
> It is a superb theory whose origin begins with Joseph Larmor and Henri
> Poincaré at the end of the 19th century.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent, and it is proven right
above. Face it, fanatic.

On November 6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>> Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
> There is no paradox.
>
> *IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
> as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
> reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
> the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
> agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
> their different experiences. See my discussion here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox

Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0

--
Rich

Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:10:22 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > snip fresh imbecilities<

You're the No. 1 skank.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7:47:18 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On November 6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >> Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
> >
> > There is no paradox.
> >
> > *IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
> > as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
> > reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
> > the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
> > agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
> > their different experiences. See my discussion here:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
> Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
> moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
> they sync clocks at t =0

Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. This is an *inevitable* consequence of the
properties of Minkowski spacetime. This is simple
geometry. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.

Since there can be no disagreement between the twins
on this matter, there can never be a paradox.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:45:48 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
> twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
> meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
> about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
> experiences

Sure, poor halfbrain. The quantity called "age"
is determined by subtraction of birth date
from current date. It's no way related to your "proper
time" idiocy. And about the *inevitable*
consequence of the properties of Minkowski
spacetime - well, you can put it straight into
your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.

Anyway, the inconsistency which is the
subject of this thread is no way related
to your moronic twins; of course, neither
you nor any of your fellow idiots has
found any flaw in my proof, you can only
desperately try to change the subject to a
more comfortable to you.

On November 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>> > *IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
>> > as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
>> > reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
>> > the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
>> > agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
>> > their different experiences. See my discussion here:
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
>
>> Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
>> moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
>> they sync clocks at t =0
>
> Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
> twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
> meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
> about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
> experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
> you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
> such as I presented in the table.

Missing the point, as usual.

The question isn't whether they agree at finish, it's a matter of distinguishing
two different scenarios.  One, that you cover, posits the traveler starting from
rest, then accelerating.  In the other, the traveler is moving at speed V before
they rendezvous.

There are a million articles on the twins paradox, and none of them ever address
this point in their flabby pseudo-analysis.  So here's your chance to be one in a
million: recognize the distinction, and analyze both cases.

For bonus credit, place an observer Henry halfway along the route, and ask:
what do the clocks show, when Traveler meets Henry?  Note that, in the case
where Traveler is already in motion, Henry and Earthbound Ed will demonstrate
the relative simultaneity concept; quite instructive.  

--
Rich

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:27:19 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On November 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
> > twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
> > meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
> > about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
> > experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
> > you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
> > such as I presented in the table.
> Missing the point, as usual.
>
> The question isn't whether they agree at finish, it's a matter of distinguishing
> two different scenarios. One, that you cover, posits the traveler starting from
> rest, then accelerating. In the other, the traveler is moving at speed V before
> they rendezvous.
>
> There are a million articles on the twins paradox, and none of them ever address
> this point in their flabby pseudo-analysis. So here's your chance to be one in a
> million: recognize the distinction, and analyze both cases.
>
> For bonus credit, place an observer Henry halfway along the route, and ask:
> what do the clocks show, when Traveler meets Henry? Note that, in the case
> where Traveler is already in motion, Henry and Earthbound Ed will demonstrate
> the relative simultaneity concept; quite instructive.

The point that I tried to make, is that EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO
that you wish to dream up yields a consistent result.

Whether the traveling twin starts from rest and accelerates, or is
given a running start at the beginning makes absolutely no difference.
The distinctions that you find so utterly disconcerting are trivial
variations of the basic analysis.

Sticking a few extra observers along the route also makes no
difference, even though the different observers will have different
experiences.

There is no paradox.

On November 5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed
> relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
> "Time dilation"
> "Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame,
> then the transformations give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
> Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point
> in that frame, then the transformations give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
> Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer
> by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks of his own clock"..
> CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of
> reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
> This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science

A railroad track runs north-south. A train runs northward. Al and Bob sit at
stations along the track, with Al south of Bob. Carl and Dave ride the train,
Carl in front of Dave.

Carl rendezvous with Al, they zero their clocks.
I) the track frame: Eventually, Carl meets Bob, they compare clocks.
Later, Al and Bob agree that Carl's clock runs slow.
II) the train frame: Eventually, Al meets Dave, they compare clocks.
Later, Carl and Dave agree that Al's clock runs slow.
These are TWO DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTS.

However, you're correct, the Wiki pseudo-explanation referenced above is
muddled, in a too common fashion; "Al sees Carl's clock running slow, while
Carl sees Al's clock running slow." Not even wrong. Al's clock is observed
by Carl AND HIS GRID; ditto Carl's clock, by symmetry. Al and Carl, each by
himself, can't do it.

--
Rich