Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!

Den 25.09.2024 17:59, skrev rhertz:

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

 So you can claim what the Lorentz transform predicts for
the twin paradox, but can you apply the Lorentz transform to prove
that you are right?
 Consider the following thought experiment:
Given an inertial frame K with coordinates [t, x]. (y = z = 0)
Twin A stays stationary at x = 0 in K, while twin B starts from
x = 0 when A’s clock shows 0 and travels at the constant speed v
to x = L, where she turns abruptly around with a brief, very high acceleration for a very short time, and thereafter travels back
to x = 0 at the constant speed v.
She is back at the time T as measured in K.
Since twin A is stationary in K, her proper time when twin B is
back will be τA = T.
 If K'[t',x'] is moving along the positive x axis of K[]
The Lorentz transform is:
 t' = γ(t - (v/c²)x)
 x' = γ(x - vt)
inverse:
 t = γ(t' + (v/c²)x')
 x = γ(x' + vt')
 γ = √(1 − v²/c²)
  The challenge is:
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.
 You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.
 

SIMPLY PUT:
 You have TWO reference frames (E and E'), which have a DIFFERENTIAL
SPEED OF v. For SR, as it was installed since 1906, the COMMON SPEED of
both frames IS IRRELEVANT (it could be 1,500 times v).
 You have TWO imaginary observers at E and E' origins, pretending that
they are 100% human biological entities.
 Relativism SAYS that there is TIME DILATION WITH INERTIAL MOTION, and
the choice of any reference frames is IRRELEVANT.

Quite. Time dilation between two inertial human biological entities.
(Note that "inertial" means that the proper acceleration is zero.
It does NOT mean "not moving".)

 CHOICE ONE: You select E as the frame AT RELATIVE REST compared with E',
which is moving far away at speed v. THEN, the humanoid at E PERCEIVES
that the REMOTE TIME for the other humanoid at E' is RUNNING SLOWER THAN
HIS. So, the humanoid at E BELIEVES that the bastard at E' IS AGING MORE
SLOWLY THAN HIM.

A bit awkward put, but OK.  (REMOTE TIME?)
E is stationary in an inertial frame.
This is easy to show with the LT.
YOU can't show it, but you have heard of time dilation.

 CHOICE TWO: Adopt E' as being at RELATIVE REST. Then it's E the frame
that is moving away at !v! speed. Relativists claim that TIME DILATION
is going ON over the frame E, and now is the humanoid at E' who says: I
PERCEIVE that time at E is running slower than mine, so the bastard at E
is AGING SLOWER THAN ME!

OK. E' is stationary in an inertial frame.
This is easy to show with the LT.
YOU can't show it, but you have heard of time dilation.
You have now told what you have heard about mutual time dilation
between E and E' while they both are inertial.
Here you can see how this is calculated with the LT:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

 The PARADOX, explained without using ANY STUPID FORMULA, is that both
humanoids PERCEIVE THAT THE OTHER IS AGING SLOWER.

Quite.
But both are ageing equally fast, so where is the paradox?
Are you giving up?
The issue is the "twin paradox".
So far you haven't addressed it!
Have you realised that the E and E' can't come back together if
they both are inertial?
May I remind you:
| Den 25.09.2024 00:25, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the
|> infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
|> bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.
|>
|> But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
|> that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
|> So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
|> aged.
You claimed that the result of the "STUPID FORMULA" Lorentz transform
applied on the "twin paradox" was that each traveller will PERCEIVE that the other has aged less than himself. Or was it opposite?
Will each traveller PERCEIVE that the other has aged more than himself?
I am looking forward to see how you will bring E and E' back together.
You will have to use the "STUPID FORMULA" to prove
that the "STUPID FORMULA" predicts what you claim it predicts.
Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.
It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.
Isn't it? 😂
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/