<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
roger

Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 5:43 PM 

>>>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.

when SR is taught, and supposedly only confined exclusively to SR, the twin paradox is usually dealt with and nothing said about "does not comply with SR rules"

 
 
Anonymous

Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 6:19 PM 

>...the twins does not comply with SR rules

that's the reason WHY they call it PARADOX

 
 
roger

Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 6:24 PM 

exactly, and often the SR lecturer/teacher will admit it does not make sense; but then expect students to abandon sense (i.e. logic) and accept relativity regardless.

 
 
a

Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 6:30 PM 

>>>Consistent: the derivation of the Lorentz transformations is mathematically correct.

Lorentz transformations are not mathematically correct, but this is another story. However what about Einsteins erroneous usage of them, is this consistent?

 
 
roger

Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 6:38 PM 

>>what about Einsteins erroneous usage of them [Lorentz transformations] , is this consistent?

from Einstein there is no consistency. There is Lorentz's use of them, and Einstein's complete ambiguities with changes of mind as to how he uses them.


 
 
a

Re: Is it true?

January 6 2018, 6:48 PM 

Correct, and he made a complete mess.

 
 
roger

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 7:06 AM 

>>>and he made a complete mess.

yes, and in that mess people can find lots of different things to believe. For instance Don Lincoln believes contrary to what is taught about SR that there is no relativistic mass:

"The most common explanation is that the mass of an object increases with speed, but this particular explanation simply isn’t true. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains the truth behind this." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM


SR fails to be a scientific theory when people believe different theories when they claim believe in SR

 
 
Anonym

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 12:33 PM 

relativists are wackos

 
 
Anonym

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 12:43 PM 

einstein at 1905 misderived the lorentz transformations and then misused them.

 
 
Anonym

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 12:56 PM 

SR is corrupt and thus makes GR corrupt.

 
 
jz

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 4:37 PM 

>>> a:Lorentz transformations are not mathematically correct, but this is another story.

The Lorentz transformations have the properties of the postulates so they are
mathematically correct.

Now it is your turn to show us: "but this is another story"

 
 
jz

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 4:47 PM 

>>> relativists are wackos
>>> einstein at 1905 misderived the lorentz transformations and then misused them.
>>> SR is corrupt and thus makes GR corrupt.

Show the color of your money, three times.

 
 
Anonymous

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 5:41 PM 


 
 
Johannes Harder Andersen

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 6:34 PM 

The great Philosopher Plato would have come up with this dialectic.

A: SR says that he traveller gets younger than his twin
B: OK I see. Since you can't define who is travelling, the twin gets younger than the twin and vica verse?
A: No, no only the twin gets younger than the other twin.
B: This seems odd, the situation between the twins is symmetric? Right?
A: Well, it's really because SR doesn't apply to the twin situation, so the twin does get younger.
B: But if SR doesn't apply, then how can you say that anyone gets younger?

 
 
Anonym

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 6:36 PM 

Thank you!

 
 
roger

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 6:57 PM 

>>>The great Philosopher Plato would have come up with this dialectic.
A: SR says that traveller gets younger than his twin ......

I would put it this way:


A: SR says that traveller gets younger than his stay-at-home twin
B: So, we could say that the stay-at-home twin is in an absolute frame
A: there is no absolute frame, motion is relative, so both twins are younger than each other
B: WTF you are contradicting yourself
A: SR is counter-intuitive
B: counter-intuitive my arse, you are talking BS, and contradicting yourself and refusing to admit that you are contradicting yourself



 
 
roger

Re: Is it true?

January 7 2018, 6:57 PM 

>>>The great Philosopher Plato would have come up with this dialectic.
A: SR says that traveller gets younger than his twin ......

I would put it this way:


A: SR says that traveller gets younger than his stay-at-home twin
B: So, we could say that the stay-at-home twin is in an absolute frame
A: there is no absolute frame, motion is relative, so both twins are younger than each other
B: WTF you are contradicting yourself
A: SR is counter-intuitive
B: counter-intuitive my arse, you are talking BS, and contradicting yourself and refusing to admit that you are contradicting yourself



 
 
a

Re: Is it true?

January 8 2018, 3:26 PM 

So what we gonna do then?

 
 
roger

Re: Is it true?

January 8 2018, 6:35 PM 

>>So what we gonna do then?

In what way do you mean; "I" just point out that the people who claim to believe in relativity contradict themselves, the believers have their excuses for the contradictions by claiming nature operates in counter-intuitive ways etc. Ideally "they" should stop believing in fairy stories. What do you think "we" should do?


 
 
a

Re: Is it true?

January 8 2018, 7:16 PM 

Agreed, but those locos will continue that BS endlessly. Maybe we mast expose them more loudly.

 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement