Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Theoretical Physicists are highly mathematical. Ironically (in this anti-Einstein thread) Einstein was a Theoretical Physicists. He came up with the ideas mathematically. His triumph was creating a mathematical model that fit with all of the data. You can read his hypothesis... it was written in advanced mathematics

You are wrong. The theories of Galileo and Newton carried the day because they were confirmed by experiment and made predictions that could not be made by earlier theories.

Galileo and Newton could make precise predictions and confirm them by experiment. The earlier theories were much less successful at doing this.

Halley's comet was immensely important for the new Physics. The mathematical laws made precise predictions that could be measured by an actual comet. They confirmed the theories.

Had this not been the case, then these theories would have been discarded.

Al took his math from Lorentz, Poincare and others. He didn't alter any of it in form. He just changed the premises underlying it.

You are wrong. The theories of Galileo and Newton carried the day because they were confirmed by experiment and made predictions that could not be made by earlier theories.

The advancements made by Galileo and Newton were conceptual, not experimental.

I could find an extended passage, but in essence he said the solution to the twin paradox was simple. The one who was moving would be younger.

I don't know what you mean by "conceptual".

When this idea descended upon the world, it caused a great stir among philosophers, particularly the “cocktail-party philosophers,” who say, “Oh, it is very simple: Einstein’s theory says all is relative!” In fact, a surprisingly large number of philosophers, not only those found at cocktail parties (but rather than embarrass them, we shall just call them “cocktail-party philosophers”), will say, “That all is relative is a consequence of Einstein, and it has profound influences on our ideas.” In addition, they say “It has been demonstrated in physics that phenomena depend upon your frame of reference.” We hear that a great deal, but it is difficult to find out what it means. Probably the frames of reference that were originally referred to were the coordinate systems which we use in the analysis of the theory of relativity. So the fact that “things depend upon your frame of reference” is supposed to have had a profound effect on modern thought. One might well wonder why, because, after all, that things depend upon one’s point of view is so simple an idea that it certainly cannot have been necessary to go to all the trouble of the physical relativity theory in order to discover it. That what one sees depends upon his frame of reference is certainly known to anybody who walks around, because he sees an approaching pedestrian first from the front and then from the back; there is nothing deeper in most of the philosophy which is said to have come from the theory of relativity than the remark that “A person looks different from the front than from the back.” The old story about the elephant that several blind men describe in different ways is another example, perhaps, of the theory of relativity from the philosopher’s point of view.

But certainly there must be deeper things in the theory of relativity than just this simple remark that “A person looks different from the front than from the back.” Of course relativity is deeper than this, because we can make definite predictions with it. It certainly would be rather remarkable if we could predict the behavior of nature from such a simple observation alone.

There is another school of philosophers who feel very uncomfortable about the theory of relativity, which asserts that we cannot determine our absolute velocity without looking at something outside, and who would say, “It is obvious that one cannot measure his velocity without looking outside. It is self-evident that it is meaningless to talk about the velocity of a thing without looking outside; the physicists are rather stupid for having thought otherwise, but it has just dawned on them that this is the case. If only we philosophers had realized what the problems were that the physicists had, we could have decided immediately by brainwork that it is impossible to tell how fast one is moving without looking outside, and we could have made an enormous contribution to physics.” These philosophers are always with us, struggling in the periphery to try to tell us something, but they never really understand the subtleties and depths of the problem.

Our inability to detect absolute motion is a result of experiment and not a result of plain thought, as we can easily illustrate. In the first place, Newton believed that it was true that one could not tell how fast he is going if he is moving with uniform velocity in a straight line. In fact, Newton first stated the principle of relativity, and one quotation made in the last chapter was a statement of Newton’s. Why then did the philosophers not make all this fuss about “all is relative,” or whatever, in Newton’s time? Because it was not until Maxwell’s theory of electrodynamics was developed that there were physical laws that suggested that one could measure his velocity without looking outside; soon it was found experimentally that one could not.

This is called a “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 say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? ... 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.

They are theoretically opposed.

Feynman is correct. I don't think you are understanding what he is saying.

This is part of the Feynman lecture series on Special Relativity. He isn't contradicting SR, he is explaining it. If you think there is a contradiction here... you should consider the fact that maybe the problem is that you aren't understanding it.

Quote:

They are theoretically opposed.

I don't know what "theoretically opposed" means. It has no relevance to science.

And, ultimately, SR's problem is that it attempts to force one to abandon the universally accepted law of inertia, i.e, that a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.