Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@contrex,

Was your posting an attempt to hurt my feelings ? Very Happy

Does that work in the bank with your homosexual friends ? They have probably seen more **** then a sewerage farm worker . Its AIDS that frightens you lot . Keep taking your government paid for medication and keep on plugging away at arseholes . I'll still be here to point out your errors, many though they may be and we will see if anyone finds your posts worth reading shall we ?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Note that it is almost identical to SR except for the hypothesis of a unmoving aether. It includes time dilatation and length contraction, etc.

Yeah, imagine that. I wonder how Al happened to come across the exact same mathematical transformations that Lorentz had published years ago? As even the basic articles I have referred you to show, there no requirement of an "aether." Today they just use the CMB for the preferred reference frame for cosmological purposes.

The only real difference in these theories is between (1) postulating the nonsensical, paradox-generating "relativity of simultaneity" (see my first post, for starters) and (2)postulating absolute simultaneity, which eliminates all paradoxes and predicts things (such as the net accumulated time differences in the Hafele-Keating experiment) which SR doesn't (and happens to be right).

Edit [Moderator]: Successor topic can be found here
http://able2know.org/topic/276564-1

0 Replies

@contrex,

Actually, Al DOES indeed REQUIRE that the Physicist on the "moving vehicle" is kept totally ignorant of his actual condition of motion. The SR hypothesis depends on one Observer staying ignorant, and never discovering the necessary facts pertaining to the experiment, having only a small sub set of the facts, which lead him to a clearly wrong conclusion. This is not how a real Physicist would work. And furthermore, if we allow both stationary and moving observer access to the same essential information, then SR is a dead duck as a hypothesis.
What we get is a confirmation of Galilean Relativity, which is proven correct a million times a day, and has been over centuries.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Best refutation of Einstein's Relativity Ive ever read!

0 Replies

@contrex,

It means that if you get to IMAGINE a multitude of Inertial frames of reference, then I can IMAGINE where my absolute origin is going to be!
Ill rephrase your comment, updating it to match your own weak logic.

""What imaginary INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE? The concept does not mean anything.""
And how exactly do you imagine that the imaginary "frame of reference" could ever affect physical motion?
Explain that, and Ill believe in SR.

0 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

this forum is plagued with bozos who want to start arguments about relativity being crap

actually this is also true....
"this forum is plagued with bozos who argue that relativity is not crap"

I suspect that they are unable to comprehend rational thinking when it presents itself.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

Who wants "rational thinking" when facts are needed?

0 Replies

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

Actually, Al DOES indeed REQUIRE that the Physicist on the "moving vehicle" is kept totally ignorant of his actual condition of motion. The SR hypothesis depends on one Observer staying ignorant, and never discovering the necessary facts pertaining to the experiment, having only a small sub set of the facts, which lead him to a clearly wrong conclusion. This is not how a real Physicist would work.

Exactly. The whole scheme requires the insertion of a chump who insists on remaining a chump in the face of all contrary evidence. It's not about objective reality. It's about the delusions of a chump, without which the whole theory crumbles.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

justafool44 wrote:

Actually, Al DOES indeed REQUIRE that the Physicist on the "moving vehicle" is kept totally ignorant of his actual condition of motion. The SR hypothesis depends on one Observer staying ignorant, and never discovering the necessary facts pertaining to the experiment, having only a small sub set of the facts, which lead him to a clearly wrong conclusion. This is not how a real Physicist would work.

Exactly. The whole scheme requires the insertion of a chump who insists on remaining a chump in the face of all contrary evidence. It's not about objective reality. It's about the delusions of a chump, without which the whole theory crumbles.

This is funny!

They are arguing over high school science... this is really basic. This is way more basic than Einstein. In fact Galileo understood this principle hundreds of years before Einstein was born.

I have met 14 year olds who understand the that these two are missing. This is really silly.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

As always, a post completely devoid of any substance, Max. Nobody pays any attention to your hollow pretensions, I'm afraid.

2 Replies

@layman,

Even a failing high school physics student would know that if he was accelerated to .5c in a rocket, and then starting coasting at a uniform speed, that he did not suddenly stop on a dime and become motionless. Even he has heard of inertia.

Unfortunately, the chumps Al posits are prohibited from knowing even this fundamental physical principle. The HAVE to be chumps. Otherwise the whole theory fails.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

As always, a post completely devoid of any substance, Max. Nobody pays any attention to your hollow pretensions, I'm afraid.

I think most people here pro-science, and they are laughing at you. I was pretty patient in explaining the high school physics with your friend JustaFool until he went anti-semitic on me (claiming that "Jews are liars" in the Einstein thread).

You aren't rejecting Einstein... you are rejecting Isaac Newton. And yes... you DO need to understand Newton before you have a chance of understanding Einstein.

I am just here to let people know what you are saying is ridiculous. But, I suspect they already know that.

0 Replies

@layman,

There is a really basic way to show that your view of Physics is nonsense. Answer this question... is the Earth moving?

If you answer yes, then all of those silly arguments about ships moving because the sails are billowing make no sense. If the earth is moving, then it has a speed and a direction. Then it is certainly possible for a ship to be moving in the opposite direction to cancel out that motion.... but in that case a ship that is tied to a dock is moving (with the Earth) and a ship that is stopped would be moving in regards to the Earth.

If you answer no, then you certainly have a problem with Galileo.

If I asked a smart 14 year old, he could give the correct Newtonian answer (I wouldn't expect Einstein from most high school students). But high school students understand the principle you are having trouble with.

I think your issue with science is philosophical. You want to have a conspiracy theory against education. You aren't really interested in the science.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Heh, Max, you need to read and understand what Smoot is talking about.

He says the earth is moving (absolutely), together with the whole galaxy, at 1 million miles an hour, in the direction of the "great attractor."

1 Reply

@layman,

But Smoot's point about there in fact being a preferred frame of reference (which is absolutely forbidden by SR) which is detectable is just a minor part of the problems with SR.

Respond to my point about inertia, why doncha?

0 Replies

We all know that the earth is orbiting the sun, and not vice versa, but SR says it is impossible to discern that.

Al's claim that the Lorentz contractions are "reciprocal" contradicts all logic and is, ultimately, denied by SR itself, so it's self-refuting.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If I asked a smart 14 year old, he could give the correct Newtonian answer (I wouldn't expect Einstein from most high school students). But high school students understand the principle you are having trouble with.

What "principle" is that, exactly?

Both Newton and Galileo said that absolute speed can't (or couldn't at that time) be detected, but neither of them claimed, as SR does, that, as between two objects you couldn't know which one was moving.

Without question a rocket which has been blasted off in the direction of a distant planet is moving (uniformly, let's say) between the two. It is NOT "motionless," as SR insists, while the earth moves away from it and the other planet moves toward it. It's something you can "know," Al's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Both Newton and Galileo said that absolute speed can't (or couldn't at that time) be detected, but neither of them claimed, as SR does, that, as between two objects you couldn't know which one was moving.

You have a basic misunderstanding of Newton. How do think Newton defined which object was moving? Please do tell (because that you "couldn't know which one was moving" is exactly what Newton said)?

How do you think Newton claimed to know which object is moving?

The whole problem is that you don't understand high school physics, including what Newton said.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

It's something you can "know," Al's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Of course Al said this for a reason. Without a chump in a moving rocket who insists he's motionless, SR falls apart.

1 Reply

@layman,

Without a chump in a moving rocket who insists he's motionless... Newton falls apart.

Is the Earth moving? Then how do Newton's laws work on Earth.

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know