Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Did you try and understand what I've been saying on this thread, lay, or did you ignore it?

Ollie, you're the one who makes no attempt to understand and who presupposes that others are so idiotic that they can't understand the simplest of propositions.

The degree of condescension and presumptiveness you are showing here is eerily Fresco-like.

1 Reply

@layman,

I am just saying the truth as I perceive it. You do not listen to anyone or anything. You do not try to understand stuff. All you try to do is prove Einstein wrong, period. Nothing else on this thread seems to interest you. You don't even know the basics, i.e. Galilean relativity, which is what you are in fact aiming at with your critique of the train example. So you don;t know what you take issue with... You need to genuinely educate yourself and stop the vacuous, haphazard ranting. Sorry if that pisses you off.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

SECOND TIME I'VE ASKED

@Olivier5,

Quote:

the principle of GALILEAN relativity

Can you explain what that is, and what it means for SR?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

So far, Ollie, this is just like the last time you came in here. Same M.O. You don't say a single word of substance. You ignore questions. You just make one assertion after another, after another, after another, after another that YOU know something I don't.

You have implied that YOU understand Galilean relativity. Do you? Really? If so, why don't you answer the question?

1 Reply

@layman,

Come on, lay. Shake you arse and read about it online. How can you even talk of SR and not know that it's basically an extension of Galilean relativity?!? You don't have a soddin' clue what you're talking about, and you won't listen to anyone, so you will never understand.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

@Olivier5,

THIRD TIME I'VE ASKED

@Olivier5,

Quote:

the principle of GALILEAN relativity

Can you explain what that is, and what it means for SR?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

How can you even talk of SR and not know that it's basically an extension of Galilean relativity?!?

I can talk about it, but YOU can't. I do understand it, but, from the things you've said so far, it's very apparent that you have misconceptions about it.

I CHALLENGE you to explain Galilean relativity, to show how it's relevant to SR, and to support your claims that I don't understand it.

Can you do that, or are you just all BIG TALK?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

You have implied that YOU understand Galilean relativity. Do you? Really? If so, why don't you answer the question?

Because it's a lame question only showing your ignorance of the basics, and lack of curiosity. What Galileo studied and described is now called classic mechanics, and combined with Newton's universal law of attraction, it's the theory they used to compute how to land people on the moon, and millions of other technical feats.

You don't even know what it's about, and that alone proves you are serious in your enquiry, nor curious to learn, since I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED Galilean relativity on this thread, as the foundation for SR.

You just want to disagree at all costs with a counterintuitive theory which you don't even start to understand. Too bad.

1 Reply

@layman,

Google it up. You might even learn something....

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Exactly what I thought, and what is pretty clear from all the comments you've made. Your understanding of SR it, at the very best, extremely superficial. You can't say a substantive word on the topic so you evade.

Why don't you come back when you think you have some chance of supporting this claim:

Quote:

You don't even know the basics, i.e. Galilean relativity, which is what you are in fact aiming at with your critique of the train example.

What does it have to do with my critique of the train example? Hmmm.

BTW, the train example I referred to was the one Einstien used to claim that simultaneity is relative, not to demonstrate "relativity" of motion.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED Galilean relativity on this thread, as the foundation for SR.

How does it relate to the train example? Hmmmmm?

Al made NO arguments in support of relativity. He assumed it, as a postulate. How does it relate to the train example? Hmmm?

0 Replies

@layman,

I'm just tired of speaking to someone who is not listening. That's all. Why don't you come back once you know and understand what you disagree with?

The train example is just an illustration for kids. I have said so many times here but you still toy with it. You are taking issue with a windmill, a non-issue. Believe it or not, Einstein travelled on trains and he knew perfectly well that he was traveling. Stop behaving as an angry child.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Why don't you come back once you know and understand what you disagree with

Why don't you?

Despite dozens of claims about what I "don't know," you haven't demonstrated that you know the first thing about SR, or about the specific issues I raise.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I'm just tired of speaking to someone who is not listening. That's all

Listen to WHAT!? You haven't said a single word of substance. You haven't answered a single question that I ask about what you say.

Read the thread. If you see a statement or claim made by me that you disagree with, then bring it to my attention and SAY WHY you disagree, or why you think it's wrong. Stop pretending that you know things that you don't.

1 Reply

@layman,

You don't know anything about SR yourself, so you are not qualified to judge why I know and don't know. You are even not qualified to tell what YOU know about it, since you misunderstood it entirely. You think it's about the psychology of twins and train travelers.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Listen to WHAT!?

Listen to me. E.g. when I say: google up Galilean relativity. Just do it instead of whining forever.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Believe it or not, Einstein travelled on trains and he knew perfectly well that he was traveling.

Of course he did. But he has the ficititious flunkies in his thought experiments NOT know it. No, that's not right, either. He doesn't have them in a state of ignorance about their state of motion at all. He has them KNOWING that they, and only they, along with others in their frame of reference, are absolutely motionless.

You don't have to tell me they're not really motionless. I know that. That's the whole point of my question. You are just taking MY side, not SR's, when you point out that the premises it's based on are false.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You don't know anything about SR yourself, so you are not qualified to judge why I know and don't know. You are even not qualified to tell what YOU know about it, since you misunderstood it entirely.

Same old ****.

Quote:

You think it's about the psychology of twins and train travelers.

No I don't think it's about that at all, and I have made that point probably at least 5 different times in this thread. But you wouldn't know that, of course. You haven't even read the thread.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

He has them KNOWING that they, and only they, along with others in their frame of reference, are absolutely motionless.

This is total baloney. Prove it or shut up. Where and when did Einstein himself claimed such a thing?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

No I don't think it's about that at all,

That is a lie. You have said again and again that relativity made psychological claims about travelling twins.

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know