Speed of light revisited yet still again

Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2015 01:44 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
that perhaps quantum information is doing so. Thus if true, Einstein was wrong.
Interesting DNA that you should so assert, as even Albert was a bit equivocal about the existence of a stationary ref

My crazy theory, which I call relative relativity, besides explaining intuitively the relativistic changes in the moving object, also resolves the twin paradox and maybe even the action-at-a-distance difficulty called quantum weirdness

Probably you'd been following some of my threads on the subject so I won't detail it here but if you have any specific inquiries please don't hesitate to ask

Maybe in a new OP
0 Replies
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 10:32 pm
roger wrote:

I appreciate Ros' and your explanations, but don't think I'll ever be quite ready for them.

Glad it's not just me.
I did like Ros' reference to not thinking about c as a velocity. I now understand why I don't understand.
0 Replies

Related Topics

WHAT THE BLOODY HELL - Question by Setanta
THIS PLACE SUCKS ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
wasteful nasa - Question by hater
Whats the deal with Jgoldman10? - Question by MorganBieber
OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
Men Are Bad, Baaaaaaaaaaad. - Question by nononono
Even mathematics isn't certain anymore! - Discussion by Quehoniaomath
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 05:47:36