The Special Relativity Fudge of Universal dimensions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
The issue is about how SRT obfuscates demonstrates inconsistency regarding the reality of acceleration and it's impact on relative inertial observers.
"On one hand SR treats acceleration in isolation from the universal reality and in the other it is included in that same universe reality."

Me thinks that people espousing SRT validity need to decide whether they want to deal with fiction/fantasy or reality and then stick to what ever they choose...

care to discuss?:)
 
The issue is about how SRT obfuscates demonstrates inconsistency regarding the reality of acceleration...
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're claiming here.

Please be specific.

"On one hand SR treats acceleration in isolation from the universal reality and in the other it is included in that same universe reality."
Click to expand...

What does this mean?

You don't seem to be making any sense.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Me thinks that people espousing SRT validity need to decide whether they want to deal with fiction/fantasy or reality and then stick to what ever they choose...
Click to expand...
You say that as if special relativity has never been put to the test by experiments, which it has. Billions of times in dozens of ways.

And QQ, why is it you continually try to talk about honesty in science when you admit you've never done any special relativity and you actively refuse to read anything about it? Tell me, how can you give special relativity an 'honest hearing' if you refuse to look at the evidence or study the theory?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
You say that as if special relativity has never been put to the test by experiments, which it has. Billions of times in dozens of ways.

And QQ, why is it you continually try to talk about honesty in science when you admit you've never done any special relativity and you actively refuse to read anything about it? Tell me, how can you give special relativity an 'honest hearing' if you refuse to look at the evidence or study the theory?
Click to expand...
I'll post a response with in 48 hours...thanks
 
Nope, I have re-read the question I have asked and it is clear and obvious about what means and requires as a response....
If it is unable to be understood then trying to explain it aint going to make matters any better for you.
so I'll just let it run as it is and watch the thead die "it's natural death".


to AlphaNumeric:

Your post is off topic...
 
Actually, it doesn't make sense, sorry. Although I may be able to extrapolate what you mean.

If you're complaining that SRT doesn't deal with the issue of accelerating reference frames, that's fair enough because it doesn't. This upset Einstein as well, which caused him to come up with GR to fix those problems.

Nonetheless SRT can still deal will a lot of problems that involve acceleration in some way, so long as one is careful.
 
I have re-read the question I have asked and it is clear and obvious...
Click to expand...

If all your readers tell you it is not clear and obvious, then just maybe it isn't. Something to consider.
 
James R said:
If all your readers tell you it is not clear and obvious, then just maybe it isn't. Something to consider.
Click to expand...
this would be true if you and AlphaNumeric were the only ones doing the reading and even then what would it tell you?
and add to that your SRT is far from clear and obvious....hmmmmm
 
SRT is actually quite a simple theory. The maths is easy. The thing people have trouble with it getting to grips with the concepts and sometimes counterintuitive results.

A lot of nuts on the internet spend huge amounts of time trying to attack SRT. In my experience, 99% of the time those attacks involve a misunderstanding (often at the most basic level) on the part of the nutter trying to critique the theory. The reason is that either the nutter lacks the capacity to understand the physics or the maths in the first place, or they have neglected some important feature of their own critique that invalidates it.

The fact that supposed critiques of SRT on the internet hardly ever involve any mathematics at all shows that the people criticising the theory have never really come to grips with it (and probably lack the background to do so).
 
Quantum Quack said:
to AlphaNumeric:

Your post is off topic...
Click to expand...
It took you 2 days to come up with that response? Clearly you thought about what I asked you and you couldn't come up with anything to excuse you from the fact you whine about scientific integrity when you have none of your own.

You have started multiple threads about special relativity and claimed that relativity says a lot of things or hinges on a lot of things (ie such things as special relativity is only as valid as the notion of a photon) and the vast majority of those threads have, as James R says, been based on a misunderstanding you have. It is on topic for me to ask you why you insist on saying "Relativity says..." or "Relativity needs...." or "Relativity is wrong if ....." when you admit you've never ever done any relativity.

Can you please explain why you start so many threads like this, whining about relativity, when by your own admission you have done little to no reading about it and never actually done a single calculation involving it.
 
Nope, I have re-read the question I have asked and it is clear and obvious about what it means and requires as a response....
If it is unable to be understood then trying to explain it aint going to make matters any better for you.
so I'll just let it run as it is and watch the thead die "it's natural death".


to AlphaNumeric:

Your post is off topic...
 
This is obviously going nowhere. Thread hearby dies an unnatural death. Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top