Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Ponder how inappropriate would be for me to say, after you challenged me to guess which side of the coin was facing up, to say:

"The question is meaningless, I can't see the coin."

It is not meaningless: simply remove the hand which is covering the coin, and the answer will be immediately revealed. There could be hundreds of thousands of dollars riding on the question of which one it "really" is. Hardly a matter lacking in all meaning, eh?

The mere fact that you don't know the answer to a question does NOT indicate that the question is "meaningless."

My last few posts were, indirectly, a response to this assertion of yours, Barm:

All of these assertions are correct. The fact is that no one in an unaccelerated reference frame is more correct than anyone else in asserting that from his point of view he is stationary. No one is less correct than anyone else. There is no preferred inertial reference frame. The Earth is no more stationary than any other inertial reference frame, including a train undergoing uniform motion with respect to the Earth. None of these reference frames has any more validity than any other in claiming to be really stationary.

Brandon, it seems to me that these claims are inconsistent with what Al and modern scientists say.

Take the "resolution" always given to the twin paradox. It is universally agreed upon that it is the travelling twin's clock which "really" slows down, which, by strict implication from the Lorentz transformations, means that he was the one who was "really' moving relative to the earth.

These same physicists will point out that, from the travelling twin's purported perspective, it is the earth's clock that is running more slowly (and it is therefore the earth that is moving--as between the two). But as is obvious from the accepted "resolution," any such perceptions on the travelling twin's part were merely "wrong."

If both the earth and the travelling twin assert they are motionless, they are not, according to SR, "equally correct." In such a case, the earth twin is "right" and the travelling twin is "wrong."

SR (i.e.. the Lorentz transformations) is pretty clear: It is the clock that is moving which runs slow, not both clocks.

Did you happen to read the post I made, based on the explicit assertions of physicist Don Koks, relating to the train which slowly sped up, then slowly came to a stop?

If so, do you have any specific response to the position I took in that post regarding inertia, etc?

The post I am referring to is about 1/2 way down on page 10 (of my screen, anyway). It is addressed to Dale and starts out saying: "Let's assume there's a train, parked at the station, and it suddenly begins to move (it is now accelerating)."

I don't know the answer to your question in the post, since it involves accelerated motion and I have long since forgotten any general relativity that I ever knew. I'm sure that there is an answer. I'm just not someone who is qualified to give it. What I do know, though, is that the Earth has no claim to being truly stationary. Nothing has any claim to being "really" stationary. Any object in the universe which is not accelerating is an equally valid reference frame, regardless of its speed with respect to the Earth or the sun. Speed only has meaning in comparison to another object.

Brandon is correct and I see you are still talking to yourself.
You are exactly like the old woman who thought the earth rested in the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle was standing on she said "You can't fool me ! It's turtles all the way down !
Anybody like you who doesn't understand Relativity, will selectively quote from those who are trying to simplify it. Its called 'perceptual bias'. Creationists suffer from it . So don't bother addressing any more remarks to me. I don't do religion.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, and, I don't think you're really disagreeing with me on this point, even though you seem to think we are.

Your reference to what's "really stationary" is, in essence, invoking "absolute motion." But nothing I'm talking about involve absolute motion, only relative motion.

As between 2 objects, one may be said to be "really" moving WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER. One is "relatively stationary," and one is "relatively moving." I am not saying that either one is "absolutely stationary" with respect to the universe as a whole (i.e, with respect to some postulated frame-such as an ether frame---which is ABSOLUTELY stationary).

So I think we're just talking apples and oranges.

As long as you have that straight, then there is probably no reason for me to continue.

Fair enough, Barm. Likewise, I prefer not to converse with pompous know-it-alls who have no clue, and DON'T WANT to have any clue, about the differences and similarities between SR and theories of relative motion involving a PRF. Same goes with people who seem incapable of making any kind of argument, giving any kind of evidence, or in any other way supporting their pontifical assertions. Likewise with people (like you) who repeatedly cockily make mistaken assertions while insulting anyone who recognizes them as mistaken.

If you knew 1/10th as much as you seem to think you know, you would make Einstein look like he should be riding the short bus.

lol, you are jumping to conclusions and at the same time you are defending your belief ystem. That I call it a hoax and whatever dies not mean I have ''some highly charged emotion". His theory IS a hoax. what is wrong with saying that?
Errr. yep...nothing.

What happens when you throw a clock in a fire? Time stops! Yeah, right!

It really is all nonsense and bullshit!

Okay Prof. So tell us how your idiosyncratic diatribe accounts "world-lines" as utilized in Feynman diagrams for electrodynamics. Give us a bit of chapter and verse for example on "particles travelling backwards in time" (like positrons).

Go on, waffle your way out of that.

Actually, Barm, Feyman Diagrams tend to be confused with Minkowski Diagrams. Note too that Feynman was concerned with quantum events, which relativity tends to clash with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram
However, it does state in the above Einstein's unique contribution and uses phrases like "clocks appear to go slower".

Thanks for that. Its a long time since I looked at this .

It is unfortunate that, these days, so many people attempt to treat a geometrical translation of a mathematical formula, which is all a minkowski diagram on a piece of graph paper really is, as the equivalent of physical reality itself. It is merely an abstraction of an abstraction, and cannot, in itself, provide answers to questions about "physical reality."

A Minkowski graph is, at best, a symbolic derivative of physical theory. It is math and geometry, not "matter in motion," which is what the science of physics concerns itself with.

Physical theory dictates the form that any geometrical representation of it might take. Yet many seem to get it backwards and think that the graph paper dictates (and explains) the meaning of the physical theory.

Mathematicians may grandiosly think otherwise. Minkowski's famous claim when making a public presentation of his mathematical endeavors as they related to SR was:

"Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

On the other hand, according to Abraham Pais, Einstein dismissed Minkowski's four-dimensional interpretation of his theory as "superfluous learnedness."

The distinction between appearance and reality is one that many SR advocates don't seem to (properly) make, consistently.

Think again of the travelling twin in the "twin paradox," for example. Although the earth clock may "appear" to him to be slow, it is not, in "reality."

Nonethess, many will say that he is "correct," when he asserts that the earth clock is slow.

What's up with that?

Of course, that's just a way of asking the same question I asked in my first post:

It is clear from Al's own analysis that even if the two lightning flashes do not "appear" to be simultaneous to the guy on the train, he would agree that they were in fact simultaneous, misleading appearances aside, if he didn't deny his own motion. Al's example assumes, and tells US, that the train is moving--he just says the train passenger will assume otherwise. Of course, as a practical matter, the guy on the train would NOT make such an assumption, and would not claim that it is the earth, not him, that is moving.

Why elevate false appearance to the status of "reality? I don't get it.

Einstein was a poor idiot, and the best people can do is to ignore him and his deluded theories.

Lets play with Feynman, the drunk professor.

His students were astonished about his alcohol breath and his fantastic oratory skills. He was like Obama in the middle of ignorant Democrats ready to listen fabulous promises of wealth for the poorest.

The students recorded his classes, (Book Six not-so-easy Pieces)where Feynman did talk the most stupid arguments of the world when he explained the Twin Paradox.

He started his exposition with Lorentz transformations and the relativistic effects. He called the Twins as Peter and Paul. These two guys were assumed to be born at the same time.

Later in their life, "Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul's clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter's point of view."

Feynman continued, Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground!

Of course Feynman was drunk as usual, because astronauts in outer space do feel different than usual. They vomit, the suffer of disorientation, after six months in outer space their bodies get distorted with tiny legs and inflated chest, their heart turns spherical, their blood red cells decrease, and when they return back to earth, they are found with advanced osteoporosis and they HAVE to go to recovery up to TWO YEARS.

What the hell Feynman is talking about when he says that Paul will be "younger" than Peter, when all the health symptoms of Paul returning back to earth will belong to the health condition of a man 30 to 40 years older than his real age?

Lets continue.

Feynman in his most incredible lunatic comparison said, "That is actually right, it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mu-mesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving.

So, the mu-mesons are leptons, and so far, the human body is composed of 63% Oxigen, 19% Carbon, 9% Hydrogen, 5% Nitrogen, 1.5% Calcium, 06% Phosphorus, 0.6% Sulfur, 0.4% Potassium, 0.2% Chlorine, 0.2% Sodium, 0.1% Magnesium, trace of Boron, Fluorine, Manganese, Iron, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, and Iodine.

Sorry Feynman, but you can't compare a lepton with organic compound formed with lots of elements which are not leptons. You just can't do that... Feynman, you were adding drugs to your drinks... you are a complete mess up.

Besides, mu-mesons appear to last loner when in fast motion because before they were part of cosmic rays, and they used to travel fast before and lasted longer because such IS their best environment: vacuum and fast speed.

This is like a race car, to which you drive it slow and you kill its motor, so you must have to drive it fast t in order to make the race car "lasting longer".

Now, Feynman will pass to the "delirium status" when defending relativity, " This is called 'paradox' only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, 'Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul , can't we see that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet'. But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around."

You won't believe the next from Feynman, so take a seat and read,
"When he turned around, all kind of unusual things happened in his space ship -the rockets went off, things jammed against one wall, and so on- while Peter felt nothing.

Damn NASA, forgot to screw the space ship driver's seat on the floor.

Feynman in his infantile argument due to the effects of alcohol, implies that at such fas speed, the space ship will "stop" in the middle of the cosmos, the space ship will "turn around" and start again its acceleration coming back to earth.

For sure the space ship has the best tires of the universe, which will squeeze on vacuum and burnt their supersonic rubber. Forget about Fast and Furious, these movie dudes are just amateurs, Paul with his super atomic brakes can stop the space ship in the middle of nothing instead of giving a big round curved path in order to return back to earth.

But wait, Feynman still is drunk, and he kept talking sh*t..."So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference between them in an 'absolute' sense, and it is certainly correct."

My question is, how in the world, in this new millennium, still existing followers of such stupid and good for nothing theory of relativity?

Is it that hard for several scientists just to recognize that they were and still are wrong?

Because this corrupted group of fanatic scientists, the current branch of physics is not science but a circus full of clowns like Feynman.

well said!!!!