Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Persol]

The"false assertion" was that Yuriy had pointed out that term

He did point out the compressibility problem.

further that it was on the first page of the paper I posted

Density is mentioned on the first page.

His claim was that it should have had that term.

As proved easily if you read the rest of the theory.

But I pointed out that the paragraph was entitled "Short Description" which infers it is not complete.

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have any equations for compressibility... anywhere. He just says that it is and leaves it at that.

Further I made the legitimate observation that considering that the authors had produced a correct result mathematically would infer that the term was not required, not that they errored.

If they claim it's compressible, then the math doesn't take that into account... there is an oversight someplace. This isn't rocket science.

But they are not the paper I posted

Bullshit.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42429

The links I posted are right from your first link... as is the density quote.

 

[MacM]

He did point out the compressibility problem.

Still trying to twist this around to fit your scenario I see. Well it won't work.

He claimed something should have been in the formulas at 2.2. The title of 2.2 was "Short Description". Implying it was less than a full explanation.

I further noted that having gotten the correct mathematical result, if anything was left out that suggested it wasn't required. Not that they had made an error. You seem to want to disregard that their mathematical results match (7) other experiments in that regard.

Density is mentioned on the first page.

Denisty was not the term claimed to be missing. As I have pointed out to you several times now "Density" and "Compressability" are two distinctly different physical enities.

As proved easily if you read the rest of the theory.

This has nothing to do with the assertion that you made that "Compressability" was on the 1st page of the paper I posted. It was however in other papers "linked" to that paper. That is not even at issue.

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have any equations for compressibility... anywhere. He just says that it is and leaves it at that.

And? They got a correct mathematical result. That should tell you that perhaps this "Compressability" factor doesn't alter the conclusion. At least that is the way it would appear.

If they claim it's compressible, then the math doesn't take that into account... there is an oversight someplace. This isn't rocket science.

No it isn't. Nor is it rocket science to suggest that while they may mention compressability but didn't include it in their formulas which produced a correct result, that perhaps this compressability factor has no bearing on those calculations.

Bullshit.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42429

The links I posted are right from your first link... as is the density quote.

That is not my link. It is one of numerous links from within the paper I linked. Density was never at issue. You have raised the "Density" after the fact was shown that the original complaint was falsified. Give it a break. You are in left field on this one.

 

[James R]

There's no real discussion happening here. The thread seems to have slipped into a "you said", "I said", "No you didn't" argument, which I imagine would be quite uninteresting to most viewers. Maybe it is time to close the thread.

 

[Yuriy]

I absolutely agree: thread should be closed.
For the history:
In full article of Schmelzer, the Sort Description of which MacM only read,
the chapter's 2 name is "The General Ether Theory"
The paragraph's 2.2 name is "The conservation laws".
Of course, bringing this article to our Forum, he as usual did not open a full article, because he does not understand there even a single page.... I understand and I did open and read this article, and found holes in logic that it contains. One of them I posted, but MacM, as it was expected, even did not understand what I am talking about...
So, this thread is absolutely useless.

 

[MacM]

I absolutely agree: thread should be closed.
For the history:
In full article of Schmeltzer, the Sort Description of which MacM only read,
the chapter's 2 name is "The General Ether Theory"
The paragraph's 2.2 name is "The conservation laws".
Of course, bringing this article to our Forum, he as usual did not open a full article, because he does not anderstand there even a single page.... I understand abd I did open and read this article, and found holes in logics that it containes. One of them I posted, but MacM, as it was expected, even did not understand what I am tolking about...
So, this thread is absolutely useless.

Actually James R, I disagree. But it is your decision. What should be done is have Persol and Yuriy's dick wacked for being jackasses and harping on moot totally fabricated BS and getting off topic.

This is an example of the regrinding of false accuastions without end. I have responded politely and factually but to no avail.

The same false arguement and innuendo has been posted in several threads.

These two and to now a lesser degree Paul T seem to do nothing but try to trash threads. It should be stopped for the benefit of the rest of the readers.

 

[Persol]

Actually James R, I disagree. But it is your decision. What should be done is have Persol and Yuriy's dick wacked for being jackasses and harping on moot totally fabricated BS and getting off topic.

It may be uniteresting, but I'm not going to continue to allow MacM to lie just because the correct is 'uninteresting'. Especially if he's now claiming AGAIN that the paper is right.

You have raised the "Density" after the fact was shown that the original complaint was falsified.

Yes, density was raised latter, do you have a point? The original issue was never falisified, you simply ignored it.

 

[MacM]

It may be uniteresting, but I'm not going to continue to allow MacM to lie just because the correct is 'uninteresting'. Especially if he's now claiming AGAIN that the paper is right.
Yes, density was raised latter, do you have a point? The original issue was never falisified, you simply ignored it.

I am not going to continue to argue with this unsupported and off topic arguement so that you may cause this thread or other threads to be closed.

James put your foot down here.

They (Persol, Yuriy and Paul T) have all three been involved in a deliberate campaign to close threads by this tactic. They have in fact caused two threads to become closed.

It is unacceptable to close threads that others might choose to discuss by allowing this abuse of the forum to continue.

Recommendation - Give all three - include me if you feel it is appropriate - a three day suspension.

Bonafide errors or the appearance of an error should continue to be allowed to be raised but not the continued rearguement of the same issue and the cross posting of such false or distorted versions of an issue posted in multiple threads as innuendo's and the generation of more counter responses which must be made if truth is to have any place in these forums.

Cross contamination and closing of threads or pulling threads off topic are the only consequence and goal of allowing such activity using personal attacks and not addressing the physics issues.

 

[Persol]

They (Persol, Yuriy and Paul T) have all three been involved in a deliberate campaign to close threads by this tactic.

No. It is a deliberate objection to you posting lies and distortions of what is 'right'. This is very simple, you don't lie... I don't point out the lies. See how that works?

Recommendation - Give all three - include me if you feel it is appropriate - a three day suspension.

If you want to suggest that, we have the SFOG forum for that.However it would be somewhat silly for you to start a thread on the topic because it would only result in more people seeing your lies, and more people voting to ban you.

but not the continued rearguement of the same issue and the cross posting of such false or distorted versions of an issue posted in multiple threads

You might remember that you are the one who has been cross-posting in mutliple threads. Don't expect to be able to post a lie in a new thread and get away with it just because you put it in a different place.

 

[Quantum Quack]

if the Earth is deemed as stationary what orbital velocity is a star say 1000 light years away? FTL I bet....

 

[Persol]

The Earth isn't stationary... it spins. If you use the axis of the earth as your reference point you won't observe FTL objects. Otherwise you are basically spinning a camera around and then wondering how the mountains are moving at 1000 mph.

 

[James R]

I think the time has come to close this thread. Anybody who wants to is free to make a fresh start if they wish.