Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.

For both the crackpots AND the wannabe certified """scientists"""
(triple quoted!!!)...

How do you know that two events happen at the same moment ?

You use a infinite speed (or zero travel time) signal or communication.

If at any point c in space, at any speed, you receive this signal from
event in point a and event in point b , simultaneously, at the same
moment that is, THEN you can conclude that both events happened
simultaneously.

Yes, in Jules Verne's time, going to the moon was science fiction.

Uwe Hayek.

Who just unified crackpots and wannabees.

The "math" defintion of simul, wrt a parameter say, t, is if two
distinct coordinates (points) have the same "t".

E.g. the (cartesian) points (1,1) and (1,5) are simul wrt their first
entry. In polar, these coords are
(s(2), 45) and ( s(26), 78.69 ); they are not simul in this coordinate
system.

Now, how one sets up (physically) their coordinates is up to them. If,
in their coordinate system, two points have the same "t" then hey are
simul. Physicist have chosen to use e-sync and meter to coordinate
their space.

You can chose another way to coordinate your space.

That takes you into the realm of science fiction. No such signal is known in the
world we inhabit. So your claim is useless, in SCIENCE.


Tom Roberts

Fyi : we went to the moon.

Uwe Hayek.

Mathematics is a science. This is a mathematical definition.
And it is not even a claim.

Boy, are you a retard or something ?

Uwe Hayek.

In article <4f15c41c$0$6989$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl says...
No, you take known distances
and finite speed of signal
and compute time of signal origin.

--
Poutnik

we certainly did, not that that is relevant to this discussion.

I was going to ask you the same question!

Maybe then you should read the whole discussion.

Uwe Hayek.

Because you cannot even imagine infinite speed, everybody who can is a
retard ?

Just trying to figure out what is wrong with your brain.

Uwe Hayek.

"Uwe Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4f156e06$0$6862$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
No you don't, there are no "infinite speed" signals. You are being silly
or drunk or a crackpot.
I know that the event of Ganymede being in a straight line with Jupiter
and the Sun (i.e. eclipsed) and the event of the minute hand of my
watch pointing to 43 minutes past the hour are simultaneous events
and I can predict that I will observe the eclipse some minutes later.
I know this because both Ganymede and my watch are regular
oscillators and their behaviour is predictable.

If you bring things together infinitely close they would be as one for
simulateous instants.

Everywhere is in its own now. That is also simultaneous universal
instants of all clocks ticking away together throughout the universe.

On 1/17/12 1/17/12 - 12:53 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> Mathematics is a science.

No, it isn't. It says NOTHING about the world we inhabit. Mathematics is an
abstract, intellectual pursuit of human minds, and the objects and quantities it
describes have no counterpart in the world we inhabit.

Mathematics is a useful, nay essential, tool in physics. But it is not physics,
and is not science.


Tom Roberts

In mathematics there are. Which is what I said.
You just cannot read or understand a sentence.
So, due to the moons of Jupiter you cannot understand the mathematical
notion of infinite speed ?

I hope there is a cure for your "Jupiter lunacy".

Uwe Hayek.

Did you find that on your own ?
I was not talking about 'the planet you inhabit', I was talking about
mathematics.
What part of your non-brain refuses to accept that I was talking of the
ward you occupy, sorry the planet you unhabit. Hobbit ? For you common
sense is unobtanium.
But you refuse to apply it ?
Let say I am using it as a tool to make you understand physics, is that
a finite probability ? I exactly doubt that.

And did you not just say : "and the objects and
Did you not just contradict yourself ?
I get it, your "brain" is large, it can contain multiple arguments.
That is why you find the math departements at about every University
campus under the heading of "liberal arts" ?

Uwe Hayek.

In article <WpudnRFoMsB...@giganews.com>, tjrob137
@sbcglobal.net says...
No, it would be physics, saying nothing about our world,
not speaking by language of math.

Nature is using quite complicated math even without mathematicians.
They are just trying to project these REAL relations
to abstract world of math symbols to make people understand the nature.
So neither you exist, as far as math describes you. :-)
Your picture about science is funny.


--
Poutnik

Mathematics is like a language.
Science is about nature and how things function we find there. But a
language could describe things, we cannot find. It might be useful to
think about abstract problems in logical manners, but that doesn't make
this 'science'.

Engineering on the other hand is not science neither, but closer
related. Things we invent are items, that engineers produce. The
principles of their function are subjects of science, but not the
production of the item itself.

TH

A definition is not a mathematical question. But to define remote events
as simultaneous as if an indefinitely fast signal would show them as
such, that is a definition.
This definition is not of much practical use, since no signal with such
characteristics is know. But that doesn't make it an invalid definition.

Actually I like this definition much more than the typical SRT
definition. This would mean, we have a simultaneous set of events, that
are not visible, but nevertheless real. Only we would need a looooong
time, until we could finally see them. But this time for the signal with
finite velocity is just that; delay for signal to travel.

TH

reality is not about what you can imagine.

> reality is not about what you can imagine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Such is imaginary math.

Mitchell Raemsch

"Uwe Hayek" wrote in message
news:4f156e06$0$6862$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
How do you know the signal took zero time to travel .. unless you know that
it left and arrived simultaneously. Your idea is circular and nonsense.

news:4f15c6d7$0$6989$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
I have .. its still not relevant .. and your premise is flawed. Try again.

news:4f15fcc1$0$6874$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
[snip]

Ok .. so you're just a troll. Fuck off then .. you have nothing useful or
relevant to say.

Slippery ground these days. Anthropic math. MUH, Tegmark,...

Yes, the new theory would be 100% anthropic.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be us that does the measuring.

news:4f15f994$0$6911$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
No you didn't, you are a liar.
Show me where it the word "mathematics" appears in
You use a infinite speed (or zero travel time) signal or communication",
you fucking LIAR.
===========================================
I told you how I know two events happen at the same instant
and I certainly do NOT use an infinite speed (or zero travel time)
signal, you crazy lying bastard.

And mathematics is not science.

Science is the systematic process of constructing models of the world we
inhabit, testing them via experiments and observations, and refining and
improving them based on those results. Mathematics is not anything like that at
all -- as I said, it is a purely intellectual pursuit, in which the world is
irrelevant and experiments are simply not possible.
> [invective omitted]
Not at all! I use it every day in my work as a physicist. But still, math is
neither physics nor science; it is a TOOL we use, in the same sense as English
is a TOOL we use.


> [... invective omitted]


Tom Roberts

No. CLEARLY no. We humans use mathematics in physical theories to MODEL nature.
But anyone with any sense does not confuse the two as you seem to do.
No, it isn't. It is the standard approach to science today.
The subject of science is the world we inhabit. The subject of mathematics is
abstractions of the human mind.


Tom Roberts

In article <a9bd80c1-99cf-45a9-87b8-
87ff0d...@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, wal...@verizon.net says...
Or what we are sometimes able to accept.

As lord Kelvin said to Niels Bohr (not exactly the words, just idea):

"Congratulations. I think you ( =foundation of quantum mechanics)
are right. But I am too old to accept it.
This time needs new scientists,
with their brain not blocked by old frame of thinking"

--
Poutnik

Speaking of which, you did. Recall you said,

Actual experiments that reproduce the "twin scenario" confirm the
predictions of SR. No matter how much idiots deny it, the fact is
that the "twin paradox" occurs in the world we inhabit, and SR is an
accurate model within its domain.”
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/934b2a1e4839fbc4
Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real
life by the very mathematics. So, do you really think putting that
phrase in quotes does rub off some mathemaGical properties of SR,
seriously? <shrug>

Your presentations of so-called proof of “twins’ paradox” are so
lame. They only disprove the principle of relativity and support the
existence of the absolute frame of reference. In doing so, the Aether
must exist without any reasons of doubt. <shrug>

Oh, yes. You have the right to remain silent as usual, and anything
you say may be used against you. <shrug>
However, you have to admit that if any hypothesis in physics cannot be
backed up by mathematics, it is indeed philosophy, and in doing so, it
just cannot be deemed valid. <shrug>
Yes, mathematics is merely a tool, but please do not downgrade its
vital importance in physics. Any hypothesis cannot be seriously
accepted without mathematics backing it up. <shrug>

In article <bcc6864e-dd44-4f43-89cc-
4db414...@k9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
> Such is imaginary math.
>
1 + 1 = 2 is imaginary math too.
1 has no relation to reality, unless bonded to number of real objects.

On the other hand
real object relations of behaviour
are mathematical ones.

It is not like
mathematicians try to apply math to nature,
but they are trying to discover math of nature.

Many people dislike more complicated math than accounting.

Because they do not like it, do not understand it and
are not able to used it, they try to discredit the math.

They say it is abstract useless joy of foolish people,
not to reveal they are not clever enough for it.

The same is valid for Theory of Relativity.
Many of RT opponents say they understand RT perfectly.
But their basic misunderstanding and misinterpretation
is revealed frequently.

Note that I am not expert in RT, not even just SR.
They say they are.

--
Poutnik

In article <9nmho2...@mid.individual.net>, ttt...@web.de says...
Sure.
But science branch about languages are science too.

Math is the language of nature objects.
We are just discovering this language,
more or less successfully or precisely.

Science is not determined by topic, but by methodology.
Sure, math as language
can describe or invent things or relations, that do not exist.

English or czech language can invent
nouns or verbs not having relation to real objects or activities.

But it does not deny the fact it is language of people.
The same for math,
it is language of the nature, at least in physical context.

--
Poutnik

In article <9nmi8c...@mid.individual.net>, ttt...@web.de says...
But it would put results based on this definition
in contrary of results based on available ways
how we can determine simultaneity.


--
Poutnik

In article <3JCdneq7Lfv...@giganews.com>, tjroberts137
@sbcglobal.net says...
How then you call the done prove of an mathematical claim ?
E.g. long time searched prove of the Big Fermat claim.
( not sure about "claim" term, if used in math )

It is math experiment, that can prove or disprove such a claim.

Science in narrow sense is limited to modelling of the world.
But world speaks by language of the math,
so modeling this language must be part of science.

It does not matter if part of math does not reflect the world.
Math is superset of the world physical language.

Science in wider sense is limited just by methodology.

--
Poutnik

In article <Do-dnbH3jbC...@giganews.com>, tjroberts137
@sbcglobal.net says...
I agree with this. But it is just one point of view.
We may misunderstood here mutually.

I mean math relations between objects
exist without people discovering math
and these math rules of objects behavior.
And even without people.

Celestial bodies ruled by gravitation
will act under rule at least very similar
to Newton gravitational law or RT,
( whatever anyone likes)
no matter if there exists any damned mathematician.

It is like elefants in Afrika existed
even before Europian people discovered this fact.

Math MODELLING of the world is de facto
our approximation of the math MODEL nature uses.


--
Poutnik

A definition should be consistent. It is not necessary, that a
definition is easy to use.

The concept of 'time' requires a certain idea of 'space', too. Than we
have light as means to observe remote events. These events are usually
too remote to be observed in real time. But that is in accordance with
the definition of time and space.

To define simultaneous as observed at the same time is in violation to
logic and certain principles. We know, that light takes time to travel,
so we had to subtract the travel time, to estimate, when the event had
happened.

So: we cannot see remote events in real time, because light has finite
velocity. But that is no big deal. Just subtract the travel time.

Than we have only layers (or spherical shells) in space, that represent
simultaneous events, seen from Earth.

TH

> accurate model within its domain.”http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/934b2a1e483...
How so?

"Poutnik" wrote in message
news:MPG.298096b...@news.eternal-september.org...
Do you think science is the only field in which things can be proved?

Doubly wrong because things are NOT proved in science .. only not refuted.
Nope. You don't know much about mathematical proofs, do you
Nope .. though you can use math to express what happens in the world.
Nope
You really just don't understand either math or science.

In article <4f16bae6$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>,
relat...@rest.com says...
No.
Now you are contradicting yourself, in first sentence it is possible,
in the second it not. But you are right, I was not exact.
theory cannot be proven, just disproved. What can be proven
is math a/o logical consistency of the theory, that is not directly
related to fact if it is or is not the good model.
I am not mathematician, so I do not. But explain me principal
difference between
( aside of ph. theory cannot be proven right, only wrong )
claim of physical theory and experimental verification,
and
claim of math statement and math verification.
Ok, I may used poetic expression,
so object behavior rules are math based,
no matter if anyone tries to evaluate and express them.
Math in physics are just trying to express these already existing
relations.
You make just empty statements.
I am graduated in analytical chemistry 20 years ago,
and I was not bad in math at that time.

--
Poutnik

Quoting is screwed up.
Koobee said the above. He quoted me saying:
Then Koobee made this blatantly false statement:
It is not possible to "prove" anything about the real world, because proof is an
aspect of mathematics, not the world. Koobee makes the very confusion he accuses
me of.

Since the "twins paradox"is OBSERVED in the real world, Koobee's remarks are
just plain wrong.


Tom Roberts

QUOTE
All three options are currently being pursued by a handful of smart
people. There are unfortunately not many physicists who work on this
problem. This is sometimes taken as an indication that the problem is
either solved or unimportant. Neither is true. This is probably the most
serious problem facing modern science.
UNQUOTE
from
Smolin, Lee (2008-02-28). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next (p. 9). ePenguin.
Kindle Edition.

And I solved it.

You, Inertial do not even have a clue what the problem is.

Uwe Hayek.

It happens to be that I was doing that. But you are really way to dumb
to notice that.
Definitely retarded. I read that in the Netherlands they gave away
degrees to the most stupid university attendees. It must be a tradition
too where you live. And also you have the nasty habit of laying words
in other peoples posts they have not said.
Well then, I am using this tool to define simultaneity, mister the
"physicist-that will never go anywhere because of contempt prior to
investigation thus remaining in everlasting ignorance"

If you really use it everyday as a TOOL, why it does not shine through
you single brain cell, that OTHER PEOPLE may use it as a TOOL for the
same purpose as well ?

Or do you OWN the lookandfeel or the intellectualpropertyrights (thats a
good one!) on using MATHEMATICS as a TOOL in PHYSICS ?

Uwe Hayek.

Well, I challenge you.

We do (actually did) not now exactly what time is.

What it boils down to, if you would have the intelligence and the
attention span, (quid non), you would have to build a time machine to
disprove or falsify my claim.

Well, good luck.

Uwe Hayek.

Because we defined it so, mathematically.
Are you sure you are not talking about your brain ?

Uwe Hayek.

It was in the subject line.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Simultaneity.
You are even too moronic to be polite. A normal person would ask :
"where did you say 'Mathematical'?", and then I would polite respond
"please be welcome to read the subject line".

Yes , I changed teh subject line afterwards to fool you, paranoidal monster.

Uwe Hayek.

news:4f17483e$0$6918$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
Uwe Hayek is the problem .. you're a stupid troll

news:4f174d20$0$6972$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
Then you don't need any signal. You just define the events as simultaneous
or not. Of course, that has nothing to do with the real world and physics
.. just whatever little games you are playing in your mind.
I see you have no answer to that

news:4f174eec$0$6887$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
Your so-called "definition of simultaneity" is "infinite speed of signal".
Signals are physical, not mathematical. The mathematical definition
of two simultaneous events is time(event1) = time(event2), signals
are not used. You are a liar, a crackpot AND a wannabe certified
"""scientist""" (triple quoted!!!)...
You've been caught in a lie and now you a squirming to try to
wriggle out of it.
You just cannot write or understand a sentence, you stupid LYING fuck.

Indeed, to this problem even the Gods contend in vain, so who am I to
try to cure you ?

Uwe Hayek.

news:4f176eed$0$6855$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

[snip trolling]

Nothing left

What you propose is fundamentally unscientific, then.
A scientific theory is only useful if there is a way to test the theory
by a reasonably feasible experiment, by which you can tell if it's wrong.

A theory which can only be falsified by a test that is out of reach is a
little like proposing little fairies that do all the pushing of things
around to make it appear that momentum is conserved, but the fairies are
invisible and they are careful to cover their tracks.

On Jan 18, 1:55 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/934b2a1e4839fbc4
Glad you ask.

Each resolution to the twins’ paradox comes in four stages. How long
each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its
hypnotic appetite is. The stages are:

**** Desperation

It must be very heart breaking for the Einstein Dingleberries to watch
their beloved SR getting shit canned. <shrug>

**** Hope

This is more like false hope because the Einstein Dingleberries just
cannot walk away from that pile of crap called SR. <shrug>

**** Zealot

Every day wishing for this false hope is going to trig the mind to
believe in a false resolution. It does not matter how fucked up or
stupid the resolution is. As soon as the Einstein Dingleberries sink
their teeth into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them
from SR. Waiting for rapture is very much the only mental activity
left. <shrug>

**** Awakening

After a while, the scientist in their id will be finally knocking on
their consciousness. They will start to realize just how fvcking
stupid they were with such zeal in their faith. <shrug>

**** Desperation

And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at
least three such cycles so far. <shrug>

**** Acceleration

This crap was first proposed by Born by equating any acceleration with
gravitational acceleration, and thus it inherits the nature of
gravitational time dilation. To this day, there is not a piece of
mathematical analysis that supports this resolution, and no single
experiment has shown acceleration manifests time dilation. <shrug>

**** Diagram

Some idiots thought the twins’ paradox can be resolved by drawing a
few lines in their so-called spacetime diagram. This resolution seems
to have the least amount of survival time. There are almost no idiots
following this cult anymore. <shrug>

**** MathemaGics

Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform, the twins’ paradox
actually involves two different set of the Lorentz transforms. The
first set describes observers 1 and 2 observing 3.

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** dt1 = time flow rate of 1
** [v12] = velocity of 2 as observed by 1
** [s13] = displacement vector of 3 as observed by 1
** All others self-explanatory

The other set of the Lorentz transform is where 1 and 2 are observing
4:

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s24] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Since there only two observers and each observer behaving as the
observed, these two sets of the Lorentz transform above must be
reduced with 3 and 4 merged appropriately into 1 and 2. So, taking
one equation from each transform, we have

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Then, it is easy to merge 3 into 2 and 4 into 1 from the two equations
above.

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s11] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Or

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s11] = d[s22] = 0

Since the two equations above cannot possibly co-exist, the twins’
paradox becomes very real. However, the self-styled physicists
possess no analytical skills. In this matheMagic show, they have
demonstrated a lack of understanding in the Lorentz transform (as well
as the Galilean transform). To reduce the Lorentz transform from two
observers (1 and 2) and one observed (3 or 4) into just two observers
(1 and 2) where each observer is observing the other, they decide to
favor either 1 or 2 by using the same transform. Following through
the mathemaGics, the Lorentz transform becomes:

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Or

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v12] = - [v21]

And thus avoiding the paradox through mathemaGics.

**** Pathlength

The latest crap to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out for
the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture of
SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging in proper
time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’ paradox.
Some self-styled physicists are beginning to realize how fucking
stupid they have been by accepting this nonsense. <shrug>



* * * * *

Each resolution to the twins’ paradox comes in four stages. How long
each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its
hypnotic appetite is. The stages are:

**** Desperation

It must be very heart breaking for the Einstein Dingleberries to watch
their beloved SR getting shit canned. <shrug>

**** Hope

This is more like false hope because the Einstein Dingleberries just
cannot walk away from that pile of crap called SR. <shrug>

**** Zealot

Every day wishing for this false hope is going to trig the mind to
believe in a false resolution. It does not matter how fucked up or
stupid the resolution is. As soon as the Einstein Dingleberries sink
their teeth into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them
from SR. Waiting for rapture is very much the only mental activity
left. <shrug>

**** Awakening

After a while, the scientist in their id will be finally knocking on
their consciousness. They will start to realize just how fvcking
stupid they were with such zeal in their faith. <shrug>

**** Desperation

And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at
least three such cycles so far. <shrug>

**** Acceleration

This crap was first proposed by Born by equating any acceleration with
gravitational acceleration, and thus it inherits the nature of
gravitational time dilation. To this day, there is not a piece of
mathematical analysis that supports this resolution, and no single
experiment has shown acceleration manifests time dilation. <shrug>

**** Diagram

Some idiots thought the twins’ paradox can be resolved by drawing a
few lines in their so-called spacetime diagram. This resolution seems
to have the least amount of survival time. There are almost no idiots
following this cult anymore. <shrug>

**** MathemaGics

Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform, the twins’ paradox
actually involves two different set of the Lorentz transforms. The
first set describes observers 1 and 2 observing 3.

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** dt1 = time flow rate of 1
** [v12] = velocity of 2 as observed by 1
** [s13] = displacement vector of 3 as observed by 1
** All others self-explanatory

The other set of the Lorentz transform is where 1 and 2 are observing
4:

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s24] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Since there only two observers and each observer behaving as the
observed, these two sets of the Lorentz transform above must be
reduced with 3 and 4 merged appropriately into 1 and 2. So, taking
one equation from each transform, we have

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Then, it is easy to merge 3 into 2 and 4 into 1 from the two equations
above.

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s11] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Or

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s11] = d[s22] = 0

Since the two equations above cannot possibly co-exist, the twins’
paradox becomes very real. However, the self-styled physicists
possess no analytical skills. In this matheMagic show, they have
demonstrated a lack of understanding in the Lorentz transform (as well
as the Galilean transform). To reduce the Lorentz transform from two
observers (1 and 2) and one observed (3 or 4) into just two observers
(1 and 2) where each observer is observing the other, they decide to
favor either 1 or 2 by using the same transform. Following through
the mathemaGics, the Lorentz transform becomes:

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Or

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v12] = - [v21]

And thus avoiding the paradox through mathemaGics.

**** Pathlength

The latest crap to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out for
the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture of
SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging in proper
time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’ paradox.
Some self-styled physicists are beginning to realize how fucking
stupid they have been by accepting this nonsense. <shrug>

**** Conclusion

So, realizing all resolutions so far are just hopeless, the self-
styled physicists either ignore the twins’ paradox or go back to one
of these resolutions. Jumping from resolution to another seems not to
be getting old for these idiots. Fvcking sad, no? <shrug>

The whole episode of SR and GR can be summarized as follows.

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

On Jan 18, 1:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Quoting is screwed up.

It sounds like you are regretting whatever you have said in the past.
Yes, you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can and
> Koobee quoted me saying:
> accurate model within its domain.”

Yes, is Tom denying it? <shrug>
> life by the very mathematics.”

Why is it a false statement? The twins’ paradox presents this paradox
where each twin observes the other to be younger at the same time and
same place. For the zombies who are so indulged in Einstein
Dingleberryism, that means same spacetime. The said observed result
just can never happen in real life. So, claiming to have observed the
twins’ paradox is just plain lying. <shrug>
Oh, where did Koobee Wublee prove the real world using mathematics?
Is it another lie? <shrug>
Amazing garbage. A paradox is a contradiction and cannot possibly
have been observed. Get over with that, Tom. After all, you are an
experimental physicist. Don’t make conclusions based on your zealous
belief. After all, we are discussing about science not your personal
belief. <shrug>

Summarized briefly as:
1. Let me put together some equations which have some faint resemblance
to Lorentz transformations but in fact are not Lorentz transformations.
2. Let me assure you that what you thought were the Lorentz
transformations are in fact not, and that if you dispute my labeling of
my equations as Lorentz transformations, then you are dismissed as not
understanding the Lorentz transformations at all.
3. Then let me demonstrate that my equations, now dubbed Lorentz
transformation equations, lead to something I shall interpret as a
contradiction.
4. Therefore there is a contradiction in what I call the Lorentz
transformation equations.
5. Therefore, any puzzle which claims to involve the Lorentz
transformation equations is inherently demonstrated to have an internal
contradiction.
6. If you don't understand this approach, then you are stupid, along
with the rest of the planet. Because I alone understand this, truly.
7. Yes, I do, and you don't. Shut up.

Ah, Koobee Wublee, the great scientist.
- One can determine through proof what is possible and not possible.
- Any observation in nature of something that has been thus proven to be
not possible is therefore deniable.
- Any claim of an observation of something that has been proven to be
possible must be reinterpreted to have actually not been observed at
all, so as to conform to what has been proven to be not possible.
- Those who believe in natural observations that have been proven to be
not possible are zealots and disinformation mongerers.
- Yes, you are. Shut up.

In article <4f174c66$0$6972$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl says...
All I will add is this definition intentionally bypasses
essential properties of the reality, avoiding
phenomenas weird to common sense,
that are leading to RT.

--
Poutnik

In article <jf8cm3$auf$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, thedrap...@gmail.com
says...
It is like a direct opposite to case of the Unicorns.

It cannot be proven they do not exist.
It can be only proven they exist, if they are found.

--
Poutnik

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
Eric Hoffer

In article <4f174d20$0$6972$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl says...
Definitions are about putting sticky name labels to entities,
it is not about knowledge.

You would have to redefine time too to ensure it takes zero time.

Your definition is equivalent to claim

"All simultaneous events in one frame
are simulataneous in every other frame."

So you are claiming RoS is inpossible
by twisted definition of simulataneity.

--
Poutnik

Re-define ? Time is what you read on clock, is what Einstein said.

Without definition of what a clock is, there was no definition of time.

I claim that a clock is an inertiameter, so (proper-)time is just the
strength of the inertial field.

Look up Mach's Principle on Wikipedia.

And read this :
http://notime.home.xs4all.nl/inert/gravp543.html

Uwe Hayek.

On 1/18/12 1/18/12 - 1:44 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> In article<3JCdneq7Lfv...@giganews.com>, tjroberts137
> @sbcglobal.net says...
>> inhabit, testing them via experiments and observations, and refining and
Your language is ambiguous. I assume you are asking "What do you call the proof
of a mathematical theorem?" -- the answer is, of course, a proof. In math, a
proof is a systematic demonstration of a logical deduction from axioms to the
theorem being proved. There is no analogous procedure in science.
No. That is not an "experiment".

In science an experiment probes some aspect of the world we inhabit. In math,
there is no corresponding concept, because EVERYTHING in mathematics is
imaginary (i.e. a concept that "exists" purely in human minds). An experiment is
a test; in mathematics, either the relationship stated in a theorem holds or
does not hold; there is no middle ground (but it may not be obvious to humans
which is the case).

As Goedel showed, not all statements are decidable.
No. HUMANS speak the language of math, and apply it to the world. It is
REMARKABLE that this works so well, but nature is not at all constrained by the
math humans apply to her behavior.


Tom Roberts

Nope.
Nope. That is NOT what SR says/implies.

SR implies that the inertial clock *you pose* as "staying home" will
indicate a greater value than the other one that rejoins it..
Depending on the narrated scenario, authors interpret/call this as
"aging". SR simply says t>t' (and by how much). The rest is our
personal wordings that are not part of relativity.
Liar. It has been done and observed.
It is done and observed on a regular basis.
True. But you are confusing the two different meanings of "paradox".
(1) A paradox is an *apparent* contradiction.
(2) a paradox is a contradiction.

In the Twin "paradox", the word paradox has the first (1) meaning, not
the second one. You need to learn the meaning of the words used in our
community if you want to understand us.

Actually, it was Poincare who said that and who defined 'time' in
Europe and the world...all in ~1885 !
True. That is why Poincare *also* defined what is to b a "clock". Till
this day we still use his definitions.
A clock is a device that "counts", a device *accepted* by the
*standards bureau*. It is *they* who accepts (by some conventions)
what is to be declared "clock". From that, 'time' is the *value* on a
(e-synched) clock located at the event. We have *timeS* really; not
'time'.

This is what I told you in the first reply you got in this thread. You
seemed to have agreed since you have not commented it or was unable to
debunk its arguments.

In article <PpOdnePuk-K...@giganews.com>, tjrob137
@sbcglobal.net says...
Ok, Ok, I confess I am not expert in this area, and my english
is weaker in area of math and physics not related to chemistry.

All I wanted to point out was that also in math
can be statement where it is unclear to be true and can be verified.

Maybe this analogy is not good.
You still do not understand me.

Did electrostatic reciprocal quadratic relation
between force, charges and distance

exist before humans discovered this law,
or only since that time ?

Nature has its own math, of course not explictly expressed,
and not by way of humans. The math by which all objects
and phenomena are bonded to behave accordingly.

Applying physical model on reality of nature is like
applying aproximative polynom function
to unknown function y=f(x),
where you know just the values.

Testing of model/theory predictions is like
comparing one function with another,
comparing values of approximation with values of nature.

This is the ever-so-lasting question in the philosophy of mathematics,
greatly pondered by Plato. See Platonism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism

In article <dec9df83-6878-408f-aa56-714939209e65
@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, rot...@gmail.com says...
I do not think so high in philosophy,

I do not think this relation exists
like some perfect idea and models are its inferior reflections.

All I wanted to say is math works in nature
without anybody writing any formula.

Without it nature would be chaos without any rules.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:45:58 +0100, Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>If at any point c in space, at any speed, you receive this signal from
>event in point a and event in point b , simultaneously, at the same
>moment that is, THEN you can conclude that both events happened
>simultaneously.
>
>Yes, in Jules Verne's time, going to the moon was science fiction.
>
>Uwe Hayek.
>
>Who just unified crackpots and wannabees.

Congratulations Hayek, on bringing some sanity into this NG.
For some reason, the concept of simultaneity has become associated with the
human visual system.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, NOW here is NOW everywhere.
NOW plus one second is NOW plus one second EVERYWHERE.
Simultaneity is absolute and universal. Einstein's approach is absolute
crap.

Even if humans still don't know to communicate at infinite speed, the
concept is legitimate and meaningful.

The dingleberries here remind me of dolphins teaching their kids that,
"nothing can move faster than the speed of sound in water".

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:k41hh79qahg1f0i86...@4ax.com...
Liar

> [rest of whining crap snipped]

If PD cannot recognize the Lorentz transform, can it point out where
the differences are? <shrug>

On Jan 19, 8:05 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wrong answer. <shrug>
Another wrong answer.
What does imply mean? Does it or does it not? Wishy washy? <shrug>

Due to the symmetry of the Lorentz transform, what you have claimed is
not possible. <shrug> Want to show some math?
So, you have different words describing time flow rate, and depending
on the scenario, you will use each word to mystify the argument.
<shrug>
Bullshit. A paradox by definition can never be observed in nature. A
paradox represents an impossible event. <shrug>
Liar. <shrug>
So, you are treating physics as interpretation of some scripture. You
just fvck with the word until it means what you want it to mean. What
an idiot! <shrug>

<shrug>
PD’s words. <shrug>
In the case of the twins’ paradox, it is so. <shrug>
No, it just means the garbage you call theory is fvcked up. <shrug>
PD needs a straight jack. <shrug>

On Jan 18, 1:05 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > We humans use mathematics in physical theories to MODEL nature.
> > But anyone with any sense does not confuse the two as you seem to do.
>
> Speaking of which, you did.  Recall you said,
> accurate model within its domain.”http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/934b2a1e483...
> life by the very mathematics.  So, do you really think putting that
> phrase in quotes does rub off some mathemaGical properties of SR,
> seriously?  <shrug>
>
> Your presentations of so-called proof of “twins’ paradox” are so
> lame.  They only disprove the principle of relativity and support the
> existence of the absolute frame of reference.  In doing so, the Aether
> must exist without any reasons of doubt.  <shrug>
>
> Oh, yes.  You have the right to remain silent as usual, and anything
> you say may be used against you.  <shrug>
> However, you have to admit that if any hypothesis in physics cannot be
> backed up by mathematics, it is indeed philosophy, and in doing so, it
> just cannot be deemed valid.  <shrug>
> > The subject of science is the world we inhabit. The subject of mathematics is
> > abstractions of the human mind.
>
> Yes, mathematics is merely a tool, but please do not downgrade its
> vital importance in physics.  Any hypothesis cannot be seriously
> accepted without mathematics backing it up.  <shrug>

The better the math the better the science.

The best way to synchronize separated clocks is to do it while they are
together then move them into place.

A theoretically 100% accurate way is to do it mechanically, as I suggested
in another thread.

just set up a long rotating rod with a line along the top. Place clocks at
each end and let them 'tick' every time the line comes around.

They are then in absolute synch in all frames.

an ordinary (flat) movie is "3d,"
in the silly zeitgesit of Minkowski's "spacetime" slogans.

what is wrong with the usaul write-up of the twins problem,
if there is no difference in the Doppler-Fizeau shifts
for the accelerating twin?

thus:
kind of a chicken-egg/domesticated jungle foul dillema,
if any.... "dillema," well; the problem is with the misnomenclatura
of "global" warming, when insolation it utterly differential
from the equator to the poles.

thus:
I'm changing my handle to Anthoprocene Nocturnal Tweets;
as far as I know, no-one has bothered to model a glass house,
at a particular location (or lattitude, if only one "dimension" is
y'know).

thus:
nice rule of thumb.

> "Both deforestation and forest
> degradation from fire and logging reduce forest transpiration, which
> accounts for roughly a third of the moisture that forms precipitation
> over the Amazon basin."

thus:
any number of tidal gauges,
such as at Maldives. the revised header addresses also
the continued increase in height of GrIS and AnIS,
however small that may have to be.

news:nkehh71j681qd7363...@4ax.com...
But if you move them, they may not still be in sync. We know from
experiment that moving clocks can change their ticking rates .. so you have
to be very careful how you move them. Move them both symmetrically (but in
different directions) works just fine
If the mechanics was perfect .. lots of sources of error though. But there
are definitely mechanical ways to make two clocks in sync.

And they will all agree with what SR predicts.
All you can say for sure is that they are in sync in their own frame. You
have to PROVE that they are also in sync in other frames .. just asserting
it doesn't prove it.

Q: How can you test (in theory) whether or not two moving clocks are in sync
?

One way is to note the times on some synchronised stationary clocks as the
moving clocks pass by .. and if they show the same differences (between
moving and stationary clock), then they must be in sync.

Would you agree that that is a test for whether two moving clocks are in
sync ?

Yes. <shrug>
Nonsense. In engineering, what you said previously is constantly
performed all the time. If not, engineers will be out of jobs.
Physicists, on the other hand, can babble about bullshit without any
consequences where in this case a bullshit is a claim that has not
been backed up by sound mathematics. <shrug>
It sounds like you are talking yourself in tossing mathematical
support of a physical hypothesis out of the window. Please stop
downgrade the importance of math in physics and in engineering as
well. Math ultimately rules in physics to support a claim and in
engineering as well. Without math, you only have philosophy where no
one can prove you right or wrong. You become the generation of flower
children. Smoking ganja? <shrug>
Well, it is the jobs of engineers to model the world, within the
specification imposed and beyond for margins, with mathematics.
Anyone should expect the same standard to be applied to physicists.
Is that too much to ask? So, physicists are just too stupid to model
their world with sound mathematics, but engineers can. Again,
engineers’ jobs depend on it while physicists can bullshit their way
out of shit can without any rigorous mathematical proofs. It is no
wonder a physicist can be amazed by a well modeled of the world in
mathematics. What a fvcked up piece of so-called science that is.
How can anyone call himself or herself a physicist without any shame?
Oh, yes, the emperor’s clothes. <shrug>

The concept 'space' is defined with light and distance in space means
run-time of light-signals.

But faster than c could be as well possible, only not far, because 'far'
means 'space' and that is defined by means of light.

How would a very fast connection look like?
It is like a signal, that is back at an instant and no time elapsed.
But is could be small, only it must appear static, since infinitely fast
appears static.

These are the characteristics of static fields. These seem to connect
without delay. Gravitation for example could be as well understood as
'action without delay'.

Gravitation is quite weak, but we know, that smaller things are more
energetic.
So lets take gravity and make it smaller.
So we have a very small structure, but much stronger field than gravity.

This would look suspiciously like an atom.

Now we do the same and make the atom smaller and get a nucleus.

But we could also make the solar system larger and make gravity weaker
and frequency slower. This would look like a galaxy.

Now we do the same with the galaxy and make the internal bonds larger
and get a super-cluster.

All these structures share the same feature: a seemingly static
connection. Only frequency seems to exchange with size.

HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA! What bloody experiment? The ones in your dreams?
It dosn't matter how they are moved if they are good clocks. They can always
be brought together again to check drift.
That statement shows how little you know about SR....absolutely nothing.

Einstein's definition is that clocks are in synch if they are adjusted so
that tB-tA = tA'-tB, irrspective of the known travel times in opposite
directions. That result can be hugely different from mechanical synching.
It doesn't have to be tested. The two clocks are using the same oscillator
and the same zero. They MUST be in absolute synch. You seem to be under the
impression that event timing is related to light.
For christ's sake read Einstein's 1905 paper so you will know something
about this topic. You seem to be totally ignorant of the basics of SR.

That's not right.
If gravity acts with finite speed, that would explain the supposed anomalous
precession of Mercury.

news:trcmh7du3t532gs5o...@4ax.com...
No . .the ones you lie about when you say they don't exist.
But if you bring them back together, that says nothing about what happened
when they were apart, moron.

That's like saying the fridge light must be one when the door is shut,
because it is on before you shut it, and is on when you open it again.
SR says clocks moved mutually apart will remain in sync.
The known times are always the same, moron .. because light travels at c
Nope
Of course it does
Nope .. one uses the line at one end .. the other uses the line at the other
end
Only if the rod is straight in all frames
I said nothing of the sort .. you're deluded
So you can't answer that question. Or rather, like your fellow crackpot
Dono, you just run away when asked a question.

Welcome to the club established by Dingle, and where Androcles is
the current Master.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Clock stability has always been the prime concern of clock makers. Why do
you think pendulum clocks were useless on ships?
The aim is to reduce random drift to a tolerable level for the intended
purpose. Otherwise, nothing is likely to cause any decent clock to change
its characteristics when moved.
pathetic...
Who cares what SR says? It is a load of shit.
You wouldn't have the intelligence to understand the vast difference between
E-synching and mechanical synching. You're completely out of your depth on a
physics group.
It is. It's a 'perfect' rod.
Einstein did...and you worship everything he said.

On Jan 23, 8:28 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:32:04 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com>
You're just a lying moron. fuck the hell off

Paul, is this one of your posts after being thoroughly intoxicated?
Do you have a point? Or are you confused Koobee Wublee with Andro
agin? <shrug>

Come on, Paul. Koobee Wublee has pointed out exactly where you have
gone wrong in your twins’ paradox applet. If you think there is
something wrong with the mathematics that He has presented, just point
it out. It is hard to discuss anything with you if you insist on
behaving in this asinine state. <shrug>