Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

Masterov:

You're making an excuse as to why others won't accept your word on Relativity. It is a lame excuse. Stop trying to justify it and learn about your misconceptions about Relativity, instead.

You are a connoisseur of SRT.
I'm sure of it.

Tell me about my misconceptions.

And for you will not be difficult to answer the questions:

(1.)
Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates.
For example: LT describes the visual coordinates of the stars and galaxies that we see in the sky. But we know that the light from the stars and galaxies go to us thousands or millions of years can be. We understand that the actual coordinates of the stars and galaxies differ from the visual coordinates.

But Einstein's theory confessors dont see this distinction.


(2)
SRT-doctrines argue that acceleration do change the physical properties of matter, and it leads to slower time?

1. What are these physical properties of matter?
Confessors of Einstein's theory refuse to call these physical properties of matter.

2. Assume that the acceleration can result to time dilation.
One would assume that the braking do time acceleration.
But braking is no different from the acceleration.
The difference has in the direction and in the terminology.

If the acceleration do time dilation, then what do time-acceleration, to return time to its original state?
-------------------

My opponents are silent, as guerrillas in the Gestapo.
My attempts to get them to say vainly.

Maybe you can answer my questions?
No?

 

[Neverfly]

Tell me about my misconceptions.

Telling one who is unwilling to listen is like talking to a wall.
Help you? I rather doubt it. Those that understand the subject have failed. How can I make you see what they cannot?
Does it make any difference to you that it's been experimentally verified? Or is that just "Nazi lies and propaganda?"
Counter-intuitive ideas will meet resistance if you haven't understood the principles involved. Schrodinger's equation also seems counter-intuitive to us.
There is nothing wrong with saying, "That doesn't make sense to me!" You still must be willing to examine it, not listen to your own ego. Not blame everyone else when you keep your eyes closed.

(1.)
Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates.
For example: LT describes the visual coordinates of the stars and galaxies that we see in the sky. But we know that the light from the stars and galaxies go to us thousands or millions of years can be. We understand that the actual coordinates of the stars and galaxies differ from the visual coordinates.

But Einstein's theory confessors dont see this distinction.

Maybe this is a language barrier but I have no idea what you are asking here.
Are you talking about length contraction? I'm not aware of Relativity ignoring this in any way whatsover. What distinction is being ignored?

(2)
SRT-doctrines argue that acceleration do change the physical properties of matter, and it leads to slower time?

1. What are these physical properties of matter?

Confessors of Einstein's theory refuse to call these physical properties of matter.

Again- I have no idea what you're asking. Asking 'what are the physical properties of matter' is a very general question. You probably have something specific in mind that I don't realize you mean.
I might guess that you're referring to Mass- energy equivalence. Can you clarify?

2. Assume that the acceleration can result to time dilation.
One would assume that the braking do time acceleration.
But braking is no different from the acceleration.
The difference has in the direction and in the terminology.

If the acceleration do time dilation, then what do time-acceleration, to return time to its original state?

I think you said here, if a mass is accelerated to near c, mass increases and time slows down relative to the observer.
You ask if an acceleration in the opposite direction should also cause this effect, yet that effect is cancelled out by the previous acceleration.

You then ask something I cannot make heads or tails of- You ask how one can accelerate time in order to restore time for each observer to be what it was before the acceleration. I think that's what you're asking... Either way, it's nonsense.

 

[Lakon]

Not available to common mortals? Are you saying that common mortals cannot learn the math? There is a lot of evidence to contradict that statement...
You, a mere mortal, are plenty capable of learning the math. You won't learn it in your living room and yes, it will cost money to pay tuition.

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying, is that it seems that learning the required math, is a condition precedent of getting even a basic concept of SRT. This doesn't seem to be the case with anything else that comes to mind. I can understand evolution without having studied biology, anthropology, etc. I can understand how man went to the moon without being a rocket scientist, or how a jumbo flies without being an aeronautical engineer. I can form concepts in my head about these things, sufficient to allay my curiosity and to allow me to say "Yes, I get that". Not so with SRT.

You can learn French too.

That's my point. I don't need to. Anything I can understand in French, I can in English.

Mortals do learn to speak French and even the French learn to speak French at least reasonably well...

Right ..

You can learn math and French at the same time, even. Although I wouldn't bother since only one of those languages is useful

What about I substitute eskimonian basket weaving for the useless one then ?

Yes, you must understand the Math in order to understand GR and SR.

Not so. A week or two ago, I could not understand GR at all. Following some very helpful non math dialogue, and in English, with two persons here, I now think I have a sufficient and genuine understanding of it.

You must know English in order to understand Shakespeare.

Forsooth sirrah ? Alas, such as seemeth enseamed, e’en ta’ wee barn. Dig you good den.

You also need to understand math, physics and chemistry in order to really understand how your car works.

Not so. I understand how the petrol aerates and combusts without a degree in chemistry, I understand the speedometer and gear ratios without math, and I need no physics degree to arrive at an reasonable estimation of the consequences of running into a brick wall at, say, 100mph.

Not one bit of it is even remotely out of your reach.

No, they are not. But to say I must learn a certain language before I understand something, or else, will never understand it (to a level as satisfactory to me) tends, frankly, to cast doubt in my mind in the first place.

 

[Neverfly]

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying, is that it seems that learning the required math, is a condition precedent of getting even a basic concept of SRT. This doesn't seem to be the case with anything else that comes to mind. I can understand evolution without having studied biology, anthropology, etc. I can understand how man went to the moon without being a rocket scientist, or how a jumbo flies without being an aeronautical engineer. I can form concepts in my head about these things, sufficient to allay my curiosity and to allow me to say "Yes, I get that". Not so with SRT.

Not so. A week or two ago, I could not understand GR at all. Following some very helpful non math dialogue, and in English, with two persons here, I now think I have a sufficient and genuine understanding of it.

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't understand GR but I am willing to say that you don't have a full understanding of it.
Lakon, understand right away there is no personal attack here.

I do not understand GR or SR because of my own limitations. Saying this may be akin to saying I do not understand English.
I speak English- have all my life, but do I really understand diction and syntax and grammar? To anyone that says I do, I'll point to the evidence in my posts that says I do not.
Speaking English in this may be similar to GR- you or I may have a comprehensive or rudimentary grasp of the basics, the ideas, the concepts- but we do not understand it.
There is nothing wrong with that and if you're like me, you're working on increasing your understanding.

Forsooth sirrah ? Alas, such as seemeth enseamed, e’en ta’ wee barn. Dig you good den.

What?

Not so. I understand how the petrol aerates and combusts without a degree in chemistry, I understand the speedometer and gear ratios without math, and I need no physics degree to arrive at an reasonable estimation of the consequences of running into a brick wall at, say, 100mph.

Dude, you're ego is getting involved here.
No, you need the math to understand gear ratios.
Why does an older engine make a tapping noise if you use 83 octane fuel? What does Octane mean, anyway?
Should you buy gas at Chevron so that you use Techron- or Shell? (Here's a hint, Sally ain't collecting around my house...)

My 63 Chevrolet spiderbox is a 4.72 and I've got Toyo P305/50R-20...
What size gear do I need to get an accurate reading with my speedometer?
Now, you can google that information- but what do you do when your net is down? What about when you don't know if the hit you found on google is accurate? When I'm elbow deep in axle grease, I don't especially want to spatter the keyboard.
Chemically, what's the best oil to use for a 49 year old truck? Should I use additives? What will all of this mean for my engine life and performance?

You need to understand engineering to know your tolerances, your crank strength, how to equalize your carburetor at W.O.T. What about timing and ignition timing at W.O.T.?
And unless you want a blown engine, you better know some math.
Now, I'm sure you can describe the very basics about your car, but when you're using a vacuum gauge and unsure of how many bars of pressure the intake feed line is supposed to show... When you can't google or look up the alignment specs, tolerance limits, valve clearances- You're gonna need to run the numbers and figure it out- Or bring your car to me and have your checkbook handy.

Don't let your ego stand in the way of knowing your limitations. Remember those limitations are current and you can change them. But never think you already know enough. Your brain will never get full. You know the basics until you're sitting on the side of the freeway and you have no idea what to do about it.

No, they are not. But to say I must learn a certain language before I understand something, or else, will never understand it (to a level as satisfactory to me) tends, frankly, to cast doubt in my mind in the first place.

Doubt about what? That it's real? How much understanding do you need to feel satisfied? I'm sorry, but the world is not going to bow down to you with a silver platter handy if you don't feel like learning something.

 

[Read-Only]

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't understand GR but I am willing to say that you don't have a full understanding of it.
Lakon, understand right away there is no personal attack here.

I do not understand GR or SR because of my own limitations. Saying this may be akin to saying I do not understand English.
I speak English- have all my life, but do I really understand diction and syntax and grammar? To anyone that says I do, I'll point to the evidence in my posts that says I do not.
Speaking English in this may be similar to GR- you or I may have a comprehensive or rudimentary grasp of the basics, the ideas, the concepts- but we do not understand it.
There is nothing wrong with that and if you're like me, you're working on increasing your understanding.

What?

Dude, you're ego is getting involved here.
No, you need the math to understand gear ratios.
Why does an older engine make a tapping noise if you use 83 octane fuel? What does Octane mean, anyway?
Should you buy gas at Chevron so that you use Techron- or Shell? (Here's a hint, Sally ain't collecting around my house...)

My 63 Chevrolet spiderbox is a 4.72 and I've got Toyo P305/50R-20...
What size gear do I need to get an accurate reading with my speedometer?
Now, you can google that information- but what do you do when your net is down? What about when you don't know if the hit you found on google is accurate? When I'm elbow deep in axle grease, I don't especially want to spatter the keyboard.
Chemically, what's the best oil to use for a 49 year old truck? Should I use additives? What will all of this mean for my engine life and performance?

You need to understand engineering to know your tolerances, your crank strength, how to equalize your carburetor at W.O.T. What about timing and ignition timing at W.O.T.?
And unless you want a blown engine, you better know some math.
Now, I'm sure you can describe the very basics about your car, but when you're using a vacuum gauge and unsure of how many bars of pressure the intake feed line is supposed to show... When you can't google or look up the alignment specs, tolerance limits, valve clearances- You're gonna need to run the numbers and figure it out- Or bring your car to me and have your checkbook handy.

Don't let your ego stand in the way of knowing your limitations. Remember those limitations are current and you can change them. But never think you already know enough. Your brain will never get full. You know the basics until you're sitting on the side of the freeway and you have no idea what to do about it.

Doubt about what? That it's real? How much understanding do you need to feel satisfied? I'm sorry, but the world is not going to bow down to you with a silver platter handy if you don't feel like learning something.

It's amazing how the "know-nothings" manage to make it through the day. If they went to the market and were charged $120 for a dozen of eggs (because the can't work the math of 12 times something) then they deserve paying what they're charged. I have NO sympathy for foolish and "ignorant-by-choice" people. <shrug> The sooner the gene pool is purged the better.

 

[Neverfly]

It's amazing how the "know-nothings" manage to make it through the day. If they went to the market and were charged $120 for a dozen of eggs (because the can't work the math of 12 times something) then they deserve paying what they're charged. I have NO sympathy for foolish and "ignorant-by-choice" people. <shrug> The sooner the gene pool is purged the better.

In Lakons defense, I do not think he's a 'know nothing.' I think he underestimates himself when he looks at differential equations and gets intimidated by them.
So while he can discriminate prices and do the math in that regard, I think he fears that higher math is beyond him or he feels like he does not need to put in the effort. It's a common thing... Look at how Stephen Hawking laughed his way to the bank selling popular science books, without the math, that ended up on coffee tables around the world, collecting dust, next to the Holy Bible. Michio Kaku, as well.

 

[OnlyMe]

... Look at how Stephen Hawking laughed his way to the bank selling popular science books, without the math, that ended up on coffee tables around the world, collecting dust, next to the Holy Bible. Michio Kaku, as well.

Even, popular science fiction!

Perhaps in that case Kaku, out does Hawking, but likely only because he more easily moves from print to film or video.

 

[Neverfly]

Even, popular science fiction!

Perhaps in that case Kaku, out does Hawking, but likely only because he more easily moves from print to film or video.

I haven't figured out if it's a disservice or good for science.
I mean, on the one hand, capturing public attention and making science 'fun' is good.
On the other, it leads to a lot of misconceptions.

I guess that's why science forums popped up on this 'ere interweb.
It is a science forum, not University, after-all...

 

[Read-Only]

In Lakons defense, I do not think he's a 'know nothing.' I think he underestimates himself when he looks at differential equations and gets intimidated by them.
So while he can discriminate prices and do the math in that regard, I think he fears that higher math is beyond him or he feels like he does not need to put in the effort. It's a common thing... Look at how Stephen Hawking laughed his way to the bank selling popular science books, without the math, that ended up on coffee tables around the world, collecting dust, next to the Holy Bible. Michio Kaku, as well.

I can buy that. He strikes me as being MUCH more intelligent than the typical math-lazy/ignorant individual.

 

[rpenner]

I can understand evolution without having studied biology, anthropology, etc. I can understand how man went to the moon without being a rocket scientist, or how a jumbo flies without being an aeronautical engineer. I can form concepts in my head about these things, sufficient to allay my curiosity and to allow me to say "Yes, I get that".

This sounds like rather shallow curiosity and self-deception. While it is true that evolution is a simple concept, you have to understand the field to understand the implications of evolution. All sorts of people think they understand evolution but it turns out they have very crazy ideas about what evolution means. Both manned space flight and commercial air travel are vast enterprises with many interdependencies and very specially trained people at all levels. Jets have almost crashed because of what gate staff did. Sure, you can have blind confidence that these systems are working, but please acknowledge that it is blind confidence.

Not so with SRT. ... A week or two ago, I could not understand GR at all. Following some very helpful non math dialogue, and in English, with two persons here, I now think I have a sufficient and genuine understanding of it.

This seems impossible. For example, special relativity and general relativity say the exact same thing when space-time is flat, and space-time is everywhere locally approximated by being flat so a genuine understanding of GR implies a genuine understanding of SR.
In flat space time we have: $$c^2 (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 = \eta_{\mu \nu} dX^{\mu} dX^{\mu} = g_{\mu \nu} dX^{\mu} dX^{\mu}$$
where the three expressions from left to right are from special relativity (in Cartesian coordinates), from special relativity in general coordinates and from general relativity.
( $$\eta, \, dX, \; \textrm{and} \; g$$ are conventional tensors for the flat space-time metric, the tangent to a curve through space-time and the position-dependent space-time metric of general relativity. )

 

[origin]

Strange argument.

Rbbis say that everyone who is not a Jew (we, goy) - animals.

Is it racism?
No?

I have absolutely no desire to communicate with you. Have a good life.

 

[rpenner]

At the moment I know of probably about 6 or so major issues regarding the logical consistancy of SRT, none of which can be discussed properly here or any where.

lol

QQ, if you don't discuss them, how can you possibly know that they are logical inconsistencies or merely personal failures of understanding.

It's not like there aren't people trying to meet you half-way.
10-03-12

In a certain inertial frame, travelers Alice and Bob describe different circular paths through flat space-time at different constant speeds such that they periodically meet up with each other when each has completed a different number of full circles.
1) If Alice and Bob are the same age at one meeting, how much older (or younger) than Bob is Alice at the next meeting?
2) Do all inertial observers agree on this?
3) Do all non-inertial observers agree on this?
[Solves #1 with all work shown. Answers #2 and #3 with a relevant equivalent expression.]

10-06-12

In a certain inertial frame, travelers Alice and Bob describe different linear back-and-forth paths through flat space-time at different constant speeds with no time needed for the turnaround such that they periodically meet up with each other when each has completed an appropriate number of full circuits.
4) If Alice and Bob are the same age at one meeting, how much older (or younger) than Bob is Alice at the next meeting?
5) Do all inertial observers agree on this?
[Solves #4 with all work shown. Answers #5 and suggests a useful exercise.]

10-08-12

The proof that Special Relativity is invalid is trivial and was, in fact, given by Herbert Dingle (and probably others before him) :
Two inertial clocks A and B in uniform motion relative to each other, according to relativistic time dilation (more correctly, clock dilation), each runs slower than the other; this implies the rate of clock A < clock B and, at the same time, the rate of clock B < clock A - this is a contradiction and proves Special Relativity invalid.

This is old and mathematically invalid thinking.

If $$\zeta$$ represents one second of clock A time in clock A coordinates, then $$\zeta' = \Lambda_{\vec{u}} \; \zeta$$ represents one second of clock A time in clock B coordinates. But this not only represents an amount of time, but also an amount of displacement through space. Likewise, if $$\xi'$$ represents one second of clock B time in clock B coordinates, then $$\xi = \left( \Lambda_{\vec{u}} \right)^{-1} \; \xi' = \Lambda_{-\vec{u}} \; \xi'$$ represents one second of B time in clock A coordinates, which is for A both an amount of time and a displacement in space.

Thus Dingle (and Chan Rasjid) are only correct if the times are different when the displacement in space is zero, but the displacement in space is zero only when $$\vec{u} = 0$$ in which case the times are the same.

More formally, if $$\zeta = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ \vec{0} \end{pmatrix}$$ then $$\zeta' = \Lambda_{\vec{u}} \; \zeta = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma_{\vec{u}} \; \Delta t \\ -\gamma_{\vec{u}} \; \Delta t \; \vec{u} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh \left(\tanh^{\tiny -1} \left( \frac{ \left| \vec{u} \right|}{c} \right) \right)\; \Delta t \\ - c \, \sinh \left( \tanh^{\tiny -1} \left( \frac{ \left| \vec{u} \right|}{c} \right) \right) \; \Delta t \; \hat{u} \end{pmatrix} $$. This last form is written to highlight the transformations equivalence to a hyperbolic rotation between time and a particular direction in space, preserving the norm: $$c^2 ( \Delta t )^2 \; - \; ( \Delta \vec{x} )^2 $$ under the Lorentz transformation.

10-08-12

[a cross-forum multiposter makes up and applies a "principle of reciprocity" that misstates parts of special relativity and comes to a false conclusion]

We just did this special relativity calculation on this forum on Saturday. [quotes above calculations] You are guessing when you should be doing math. As such, you haven't demonstrated special relativity's absurdity

10-12-12

When I hold two clocks in my hands and slowly bring them together, this is actually a symmetric twin paradox. As I do not know time dilation, but rely only on symmetry, I predict that the twins A and B would end up the same age. If twin A knows time dilation, then he predicts that, as B is moving, it will end up younger. Lorentz time dilation is conditional only on inertial frames with relative uniform motions; and inertial frames are all equivalent - not equivalent with certain qualifications restriction. So reciprocity applies and B too, if he relies on time dilation, will predict that A will end up younger.

You nakedly assert this without calculation and so violate the principle that one needs to find the predictions of a theory before one can fairly criticize the predictions of the theory.

Case I. Viewpoint of the midpoint-man. Inertial coordinates $$(t, \vec{x})$$, proper times $$\tau_A \; \textrm{and} \; \tau_B$$
[calculation of the proper time for A = proper time for B as expected]

Case II. Viewpoint of A. Inertial coordinates $$(t', \vec{x}')$$, proper times $$\tau'_A \; \textrm{and} \; \tau'_B$$
[calculation of the proper time for A = proper time for B as expected by everyone except Chan Rasjid]

Case III. Viewpoint of B. Inertial coordinates $$(t'', \vec{x}'')$$, proper times $$\tau''_A \; \textrm{and} \; \tau''_B$$
Care to try your hand at actually doing special relativity?

 

[brucep]

QQ, if you don't discuss them, how can you possibly know that they are logical inconsistencies or merely personal failures of understanding.

It's not like there aren't people trying to meet you half-way.
10-03-12
10-06-12
10-08-12
10-08-12
10-12-12

You've got the patience of Job. Crankdumb = Verbose intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Lakon]

Aww .. you guys .. Neverfly, OnlyMe, rpenner,

I don't want to get into a major tit for tat with ya'll on this. I have tried to say something simple, but seem to have failed. I'll try once again.

People get curious about things and then seek an explanation sufficient to a level they are satisfied with. There is nothing wrong with that .. is there ?

I can undestand how a plane (to draw but one of a huge number of examples) flies without knowing anything about aeronautical engineering. I can it understand sufficient to allay my curiousity. If I had no idea how a plane flew and asked you, you wouldn't say 'go to university for 6 - 10 years, study the relevant courses, and then you'll understand. You could, and hopefully would, give be a laymans explanation withing less than a minute.

That's my first point. You couldn't disagree with that, surely.

Following from that, there is relativity, which piques ones curiousity. But it seems that unlike anything else in the grand scope of human existence and knowledge, one who undestands it seems to be unable to explain it in terms other than higher maths - a language which most curious enquirers would be unwilling to learn.

So it seems it's a take it or leave it situation. Relativity (and particularly SRT) can only be described by learning and understanding higher math - another language, no matter how intelligent you are (and please don't infer from that that I'm labelling myself highly intelligent).

As I said, something doesn't sit right in my mind about such an attitude.

But I guess that's the way it is. No critisism of any person here is intended, however.

 

[Neverfly]

Aww .. you guys .. Neverfly, OnlyMe, rpenner,

Golly gee whiz... shucks, you guys.

I can undestand how a plane (to draw but one of a huge number of examples) flies without knowing anything about aeronautical engineering. I can it understand sufficient to allay my curiousity. If I had no idea how a plane flew and asked you, you wouldn't say 'go to university for 6 - 10 years, study the relevant courses, and then you'll understand. You could, and hopefully would, give be a laymans explanation withing less than a minute.
That's my first point. You couldn't disagree with that, surely.

No disagreement...

Following from that, there is relativity, which piques ones curiousity. But it seems that unlike anything else in the grand scope of human existence and knowledge, one who undestands it seems to be unable to explain it in terms other than higher maths - a language which most curious enquirers would be unwilling to learn.

So it seems it's a take it or leave it situation. Relativity (and particularly SRT) can only be described by learning and understanding higher math - another language, no matter how intelligent you are (and please don't infer from that that I'm labelling myself highly intelligent).

As I said, something doesn't sit right in my mind about such an attitude.

But I guess that's the way it is. No critisism of any person here is intended, however.

It's a problem. And you're not the only one that wishes it was different. But this is how it is.
It's not just SRT.
Look at a great deal of Quantum Mechanics.
Yes, chances are there is a compromise, somewhere in between where you can be mostly satisfied but not so satisfied that you went to University.
But the plane and car were not so good analogies. And there's a practical reason why.
You understand how a plane flies or how an internal combustion engine works, in principle. But with SRT, for example, (and GR) you can only go a certain distance before the mind begins to reject what appears to be counter-intuitive.
So with the engine in the car- you can easily accept the physics of it without knowing the math because you can still see how it makes sense, mostly. A fuel/air mixture is compressed, combusts; creates a powerful force that presses on the piston... Since you were a little kid, you've been turning things and striking things and pressing on things... But with SRT it's not quite like that, you're left with quandaries and absurdities because we've developed to certain conditions and while the internal combustion engine is within those known conditions, Relativity is not and QM is just plain weird. It is there that you find the difference.
Not grasping it becomes a problem when people don't grasp it, get misconceptions and then, reject SRT based on those misconceptions because they believe they understand it when they do not. A good strong example of this is Dingle.

You then try to let other people know that Einstein was wrong and of course, they tell you you have misconceptions. You refuse to believe that and instead claim that Nazi Jews are holding you down.

 

[rpenner]

Relativity (and particularly SRT) can only be described by learning and understanding higher math - another language, no matter how intelligent you are (and please don't infer from that that I'm labelling myself highly intelligent).

You have this backwards. The math of special relativity is at least several tens of hours of learning easier than the math of general relativity. No one can understand general relativity more than they understand special relativity.

And if you want pop-science sketches, these do a fine job of telling you what these ideas are, but they don't begin to scratch the world of what these ideas are not so do little to dispel the confusion of the scantily educated.

* Commercial heavier-than-air aircraft propel shaped surfaces through the air to generate an aerodynamic lift which is on the order of magnitude of the weight of the aircraft, but this is at a cost of aerodynamic drag, so considerable power must be exerted to propel the surface (which may include the entire aircraft). A second concern is stable flight, so the aircraft does not suddenly turn belly up or fall from the sky. A third concern is control of the aircraft such that it goes where one wants it to go.

* Evolution is the consequence of a population of imperfect replicators with competition for resources and heritable elements that govern traits that affect success of reproduction. Sex, the recombination of heritable elements between individuals, can increase the expected rate at which the population reacts to changes to environment or adopts a novel beneficial mutation. Social creatures like bees and humans can have complex relationships where an individual's success is to a large part contributed by a large number of individuals not directly investing heritable element in the new offspring. In complex plants and animals, heritable elements govern how these organisms develop in byzantine manner so that tiny changes can result in large changes in expressed organism bodies.

* Special Relativity is the proposition that all inertial Cartesian coordinate systems are equivalent to the laws of physics so physical problems can fairly be performed in the inertial Cartesian coordinate system that makes the most intuitive sense to the problem solver with confidence that the results are valid. Special Relativity differs from the physics that preceded it in that those systems assumed there was no relationship between space and time, while in special relativity the proper time of any slower-than-light world-line is the same in all allowed coordinate systems and the speed of any massless phenomenon (like the speed of light in vacuum) is a constant regardless of the choice of allowed coordinate system. Special relativity applies when gravitational effects are negligible.

* General Relativity is the proposition that the laws of physics can be written in a form which factors out any choice of a smooth one-to-one coordinate system, and that space-time is everywhere locally equivalent to the space-time of special relativity, and that mass, momentum, energy and pressure all act to curve space-time so that the closer you are to a big concentration of these, the more obvious the effects of curvature are and consequently the smaller the region of space time you can examine before the special relativity approximation becomes untrustworthy.

 

[Masterov]

Tell me about my misconceptions.

Telling one who is unwilling to listen is like talking to a wall.
Help you? I rather doubt it. Those that understand the subject have failed. How can I make you see what they cannot?
Does it make any difference to you that it's been experimentally verified? Or is that just "Nazi lies and propaganda?"
Counter-intuitive ideas will meet resistance if you haven't understood the principles involved. Schrodinger's equation also seems counter-intuitive to us.
There is nothing wrong with saying, "That doesn't make sense to me!" You still must be willing to examine it, not listen to your own ego. Not blame everyone else when you keep your eyes closed.

I was sure that you - a scientist and you have an argument.
I was wrong.
You another Joe Blow, which there are many here.

 

[Masterov]

Strange argument.

Rbbis say that everyone who is not a Jew (we, goy) - animals.

Is it racism?
No?

I have absolutely no desire to communicate with you. Have a good life.

Made I compulsion for you to communicate with me?

 

[Lakon]

Golly gee whiz... shucks, you guys.

No disagreement...

It's a problem. And you're not the only one that wishes it was different. But this is how it is.
It's not just SRT.
Look at a great deal of Quantum Mechanics.

Funnily, my knowledge of QM (such as it might be) does not present me with the same 'brick wall' as does time dilation. And let me call it that - time dilation, because that's what I stuggle with - how my twin can return back to earth actually years younger than me.

Yes, chances are there is a compromise, somewhere in between where you can be mostly satisfied but not so satisfied that you went to University.
But the plane and car were not so good analogies. And there's a practical reason why.
You understand how a plane flies or how an internal combustion engine works, in principle. But with SRT, for example, (and GR) you can only go a certain distance before the mind begins to reject what appears to be counter-intuitive.
So with the engine in the car- you can easily accept the physics of it without knowing the math because you can still see how it makes sense, mostly. A fuel/air mixture is compressed, combusts; creates a powerful force that presses on the piston... Since you were a little kid, you've been turning things and striking things and pressing on things... But with SRT it's not quite like that, you're left with quandaries and absurdities because we've developed to certain conditions and while the internal combustion engine is within those known conditions, Relativity is not and QM is just plain weird. It is there that you find the difference.

I don't disagree with any of that. But not all understanding comes from familiarity and habituation. Completely novel concepts can be readily grasped by most, if explained properly.

Not grasping it becomes a problem when people don't grasp it, get misconceptions and then, reject SRT based on those misconceptions because they believe they understand it when they do not. A good strong example of this is Dingle.

I haven't rejected SRT. How can I reject something I don't understand ?

You then try to let other people know that Einstein was wrong ..

I don't say Einstein was wrong. In fact, reading through some of his writings, and some of his pithy sayings on relativity, I think he's more right than most. You would do well to go to the wiki quotes page and have a read of what he, himself said about his theory. That sort of thing is one of the elements that continues to fuel my curiousity.

Also, you must know surely, that many serious scientists do question relativity, spacetime, etc. I came across a brilliant article by two real heavyweights a while back, styled "Spacetime is a fairytale" I'll try to find it soon, and post a link for your perusal.

.. and of course, they tell you you have misconceptions. You refuse to believe that and instead claim that Nazi Jews are holding you down.

I'd rather stay out of such nonsense. If my paranoia worked overtime (it sometimes does) I'd say it had the ring of 'agent provocateur' to it. Of course, I can't say for sure and therefore make no such accusation - just stating how it's come across from that sourse of late.

 

[Lakon]

You have this backwards. The math of special relativity is at least several tens of hours of learning easier than the math of general relativity. No one can understand general relativity more than they understand special relativity.

And if you want pop-science sketches, these do a fine job of telling you what these ideas are, but they don't begin to scratch the world of what these ideas are not so do little to dispel the confusion of the scantily educated.

* Commercial heavier-than-air aircraft propel shaped surfaces through the air to generate an aerodynamic lift which is on the order of magnitude of the weight of the aircraft, but this is at a cost of aerodynamic drag, so considerable power must be exerted to propel the surface (which may include the entire aircraft). A second concern is stable flight, so the aircraft does not suddenly turn belly up or fall from the sky. A third concern is control of the aircraft such that it goes where one wants it to go.

* Evolution is the consequence of a population of imperfect replicators with competition for resources and heritable elements that govern traits that affect success of reproduction. Sex, the recombination of heritable elements between individuals, can increase the expected rate at which the population reacts to changes to environment or adopts a novel beneficial mutation. Social creatures like bees and humans can have complex relationships where an individual's success is to a large part contributed by a large number of individuals not directly investing heritable element in the new offspring. In complex plants and animals, heritable elements govern how these organisms develop in byzantine manner so that tiny changes can result in large changes in expressed organism bodies.

* Special Relativity is the proposition that all inertial Cartesian coordinate systems are equivalent to the laws of physics so physical problems can fairly be performed in the inertial Cartesian coordinate system that makes the most intuitive sense to the problem solver with confidence that the results are valid. Special Relativity differs from the physics that preceded it in that those systems assumed there was no relationship between space and time, while in special relativity the proper time of any slower-than-light world-line is the same in all allowed coordinate systems and the speed of any massless phenomenon (like the speed of light in vacuum) is a constant regardless of the choice of allowed coordinate system. Special relativity applies when gravitational effects are negligible.

* General Relativity is the proposition that the laws of physics can be written in a form which factors out any choice of a smooth one-to-one coordinate system, and that space-time is everywhere locally equivalent to the space-time of special relativity, and that mass, momentum, energy and pressure all act to curve space-time so that the closer you are to a big concentration of these, the more obvious the effects of curvature are and consequently the smaller the region of space time you can examine before the special relativity approximation becomes untrustworthy.

Thanks for taking the time.

As I said, I don't need a brief lesson in aeronautics to feel comfortable with the issue of flying planes.

I don't need a brief lesson on evolution to feel comfortable with the fact that life evolves.

I was almost going to say I do need a brief lesson in how my twin can come back years younger .. but it's just going to put us 'round the same ol' circle, so I'll skip it.

But I do thank you. My ignorance, not yours. And yes, I am scanitly educated. Mea culpa here too.