Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@Olivier5,

Quote:

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

Read the thread, I addressed this issue many times over already. Take the two twins in the so-called "twin paradox," as a ready-made example. Which one of those two claims he is moving? Answer, neither.

Which claims he is NOT moving? Answer, both.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

That is a lie

What the hell has gotten into you, Ollie? Read the thread, I've made that clear, more than once. And you want to call me a liar based on your own absolute ignorance about what this thread is even about?

**** YOU, you insolent asshole.

1 Reply

@layman,

No quote, no proof, nothing.... You want me to take your word for it, huh?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

READ THE THREAD. Until then shut the hell up. I'm not going through it all for the 7th time just to address your totally irresponsible accusations.

1 Reply

@layman,

Suck my insolent French dick.

You SAID forever that "the twin must think he is static" "Einstein had them KNOWING that they, and only they, are absolutely motionless."

blah blah blah...

Special relativity makes no claim about what people THINK.

1 Reply

@layman,

I read the thread. Einstein never ever suggested any such baloney as you claim he said.

Try and understand the words that are getting out of my keyboard.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I read the thread

I don't believe that. If you "read" it (as opposed to "looked at parts of it," then you didn't understand what I was saying. You're usually pretty good at understanding, so I have great difficulty believing you even read it.

Read the thread until you come across the parts where I quote Professor Morin, Physics professor at Harvard, to see what relativity says about it.

1 Reply

@layman,

You don't even understand what YOU YOURSELF are saying. All you want is to take aim at SR from any and all possible angles, including the most ridiculous.

There are legitimate issues with relativity. No need to invent your psychological BS. No need to confuse SR with how they try and explain it to little kids. No need to dumb down yourself and everybody else. This is a place for grown-ups, or so I thought...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Special relativity makes no claim about what people THINK

SR has it's formal side, mathematical equations (Lorentz Transformations), protocols for employing those formulas etc. That formal side tells the practiontioner to treat them as motionless (of course all these characters are fictitious, we all know that).

But SR is also TAUGHT, in the classroom, everyday. And in those classrooms millions of stories are made up to show how and why SR supposedly reflects "reality." That's were all the "B insists he's not moving crap" gets presented. In SR.

Tell me, Ollie, how is the "relativity of simultaneity" explained to students? Tell me first what it even is, if you know.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I've said it over, and over, and over, and over, and over: I have no problems whatsoever with SR as a strictly mathematical endeavor. That's not the problem.

The problem is the mushy and contradictory "logic" which gets crammed down students throats by professors when "teaching" SR, all in the attempt to convince them that SR is consistent with "reality." and NOT just a math thing.

0 Replies

@layman,

Okay so at long last, you register that what you are REALLY taking issue with is NOT special relativity but the pretty lame METAPHORS that are used to try and explain it "in the classroom".

But then, there are classrooms and classrooms... I was in a classroom once, studying quantum mechanics and SR and stuff. The 'train example' never even cropped up. Do you know why? Because we were using the proper mathematical formalism and had no use for the sort of half-baked childish metaphors you are focusing upon...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

'train example' never even cropped up. Do you know why? Because we were using the proper mathematical formalism and had no use for the sort of half-baked childish metaphors you are focusing upon...

Lucky you.

Quote:

the pretty lame METAPHORS that are used to try and explain it "in the classroom".

Yeah, and those that have been repeatedly asserted as valid and "true" in this thread, by one poster after another.

'

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Okay so at long last, you register that what you are REALLY taking issue with is NOT special relativity

No, not AT LONG LAST. I've said it repeatedly throughout this thread. You know, the thread you claimed to have read? And for which your "reading" presumably gave you the audacity to call me a liar when I simply repeated what I have already said in this thread several times. That thread.

2 Replies

@layman,

Btw I do take issue with SR itself. Not because it doesn't "work" (in the very limited circumstances where is applies), and not because it's inconsistent (it isn't--not mathematically, anyway).

But because it is inconsistent in it's philosophical doctrines (which exist apart from the math) and because it is logical nonsense, due to the application of that ideology. Actually "inconsistent" is not the right word here. It's outright self-contradictory.

0 Replies

@layman,

Sorry, but I do read, and more importantly, I understand what I read... Such as the very thread title, for a start.

You're not talking of how it's taught up there in the title, you're asking: "Why in the world would EINSTEIN suggest.... And most recently you asserted that Einstein "has them KNOWING that they, and only they, along with others in their frame of reference, are absolutely motionless."

You are a weasel trying to avoid accountability, and a rabid weasel at that, biting the very hand that reaches out to help you.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You are a weasel trying to avoid accountability, and a rabid weasel at that, biting the very hand that reaches out to help you.

First of all: **** you, Frog.

Quote:

You're not talking of how it's taught up there in the title, you're asking: "Why in the world would EINSTEIN suggest....

Yeah, I'm talking about an exposition that Al personaly wrote and delivered to the public for consumption (in 1916 or, more likely 1920), I forget which now.

HE (not me, not some "spokesman') talked about the guy on the train assuming that he was not moving, and ON THAT (subjective) basis, proceeded to "explain" why simultaneity was "relative." It is AlL completely entailed by his way of applying the Lorentz Transformations. It wasn't just a willy-nilly thing. There is a reason why that's required--that every frame of reference in SR is, by definition, its own "ether" (completely motionless).

1 Reply

@layman,

As I said again and again, you are confusing the metaphors with the theory. But since that's what you want to do, go ahead and be a fool.

Just don't think you can lie to me and not get caught.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

As I said again and again, you are confusing the metaphors with the theory

I'm talking about how EINSTEIN himself explained and justified the theory. Which you presumed he never said. You call things "lies" just because YOU are ignorant of them. You assume that Einstein never said such a thing. You don't ask, you tell. And you tell people what THEY think, and call them liars if your projections are wrong.

Sheesh, get over yourself, Ollie.

1 Reply

@layman,

The way Einstein himself explained the theory is through a series of scientific articles. The rest is metaphors for kids. Keep wanking.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The way Einstein himself explained the theory is through a series of scientific articles

Well, it's been made obvious that you're not familiar with the book he wrote on the topic. Are you now denying that that exists, too?

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know