roger

# Re: Is it true?

January 4 2018, 8:47 PM
a

# Re: Is it true?

January 4 2018, 8:56 PM
 lol
jz

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 9:30 AM
 a:>>>>> Einstein 1905, p.7: s=b(x-v.t)=b.x' Viewed moving body expands with its system k (this shrinks system K). <<<<<<< This is not an observation of the moving body but the relation between the space coordinates of systems k and K. I showed before how a proper observation has to be done. You and also roger have no idea how to correctly apply special relativity.
roger

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 9:47 AM
 >>>This is not an observation of the moving body but the relation between the space coordinates of systems k and K. what is written is vague by Einstein and is no way clear that it means that, with relativists saying contrary things to try to make sense of things. In relativity both k and K might claim to be "stationary", so phrases like "stationary" frame becomes unclear as to what it refers to, and hence what is "moving" also becomes messed up.
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 2:10 PM
 >>>This is not an observation of the moving body but the relation between the space coordinates of systems k and K. another shameless lie from a relativist. according to einstein - a stick is both space and body. and the body is part of space.
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 2:18 PM
 in einstein 1905, K is always the stationary system and k is always the moving one.
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 2:26 PM
 and >>>The viewer is in his stationary system K all the time.
roger

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 2:26 PM
 >>>einstein 1905, K is always the stationary system and k is always the moving one. But that would be in an absolute sense, and relativity abandons that to have relative sense K is moving relative to k, and vice versa.
roger

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 2:28 PM
 >>according to einstein - a stick is both space and body. and the body is part of space. yes another mess
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 2:35 PM
 >>But that would be in an absolute sense, and relativity abandons that to have relative sense K is moving relative to k, and vice versa. this is einstein 1905, still at the ether era. and in an attempt to reduce the mess.
roger

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 2:47 PM
 never was tidied up
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 5 2018, 3:45 PM
 yeah
Johannes Harder Andersen

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 8:02 AM
 It's quite simple: The stationary observer can observe that the train has shrunk, but he can't shrink the train by just observing it. It that was the case, then different observers could shrink the train differently; the train being confused as to what it should shrink to... Unfortunately, observers don't have that power to do something to the travelling frame. But relativity is often explained that way.
jz

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 9:17 AM
 Indeed. Some say here that relativity is a mess, but the mess is in their own heads. Special relativity is well-defined, mathematically and physically. It is consistent and free of contradictions in itself. Many claim to have found a contradiction but then they have made a mistake themselves, because they have not applied the theory correctly.
Johannes Harder Andersen

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 10:18 AM
 ----Some say here that relativity is a mess, but the mess is in their own heads. Who are 'some'? ----Special relativity is well-defined, mathematically and physically. Based on what? Please present your arguments for this. ----It is consistent and free of contradictions in itself. Based on what? Please present your arguments for this. ----Many claim to have found a contradiction but then they have made a mistake ----themselves, because they have not applied the theory correctly. Who are 'Many'? Please present your arguments. If you can't show the colour of your money, then you're just an empty barrel bringing nothing to the table.
roger

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 10:45 AM
 the "mess" is in the heads of the people who believe it is not a mess, because they say the travelling twin gets back younger than the stationary twin, but that would require an absolute frame which they deny exists and claim each twin says the other twin's clock is slower.
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 11:59 AM
 >>If you can't show the colour of your money, then you're just an empty barrel bringing nothing to the table. exactly. we should stop tolerate that.
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 12:06 PM
 >>the "mess" is in the heads of the people who believe it is not a mess they are lost in a desert
jz

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 12:20 PM
 >>> Who are some who say mess? Look back in these posts. >>> Based on what? Please present your arguments for this. Well-defined: based on the postulates (true or not, but that is not the point). Consistent: the derivation of the Lorentz transformations is mathematically correct. >>> Who are 'Many'? Please present your arguments. You will find them in this forum and papers on this website. And always the twins. The scenario with the twins does not comply with SR rules. So you cannot draw conclusions about there adventure with SR only.
Anonym

# Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 12:23 PM
 haa haa

 < Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next > Respond to this message