Re: Beam me up - trying to get a basic understanding of GR


<anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1115215615.533794.54240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks to all for their time and input.
> Unfortunately I am tending more toward the 'crank' side of things at
> the moment,
> and all my answerers are on the other side!!

You had a reply from cracktroll par excellence Koobee Wublee.
But I agree - to a layman he makes himself look very convincing.
That's what you get when you go to Usenet to learn something.
Bad idea.

> I could happily get stuck into applying the Lorentz transformations
> etc, and may
> still do that. However, it appears to me that one can find logical
> inconsistency
> within the propositions of SR/GR which, if true, obviously disproves
> the
> correctness of the theory as a whole (but obviously not of the
> experimental
> observations which it attempts to explain).

Without properly knowing the theory (and what comes
before), you can very easily think that you have found a
logical inconsistency. Most of the crackpots do.

> 1. It seems to me that one can philosophically prove the existence of
> an absolute
> frame of reference.

Replace "frame of reference" with "god" and no one will
be able to tell the difference.

> Does this bother SR/GR?

Of course not.
SR/GR is about real measurements.
Philosophical babble is for armchair philosophers.

> I don't know. Any takers?
> 2. If SR/GR rule that time dilates, in actual fact, according to speed,
> then this
> leads immediately to a direct logical contradiction.

You mean like when we look at each other through a gap
between our fingers, I say that you are smaller than me,
and you say that I am smaller than you.
Sure.

> If SR/GR rule that time only *appears* to dilate according to speed,
> (i.e. the
> travelling twin in the twin paradox is NOT younger upon return) then
> this leads to a
> logical impossibility.

SR/GR does not say that.
The fact that you think it does, shows that you have no
idea what SR/GR actually says.

> Any takers on this one? (Which proposition is it, by the way? Does the
> traveller's
> time REALLY dilate the faster they go?)

I already answered this, but I will repeat it.
Time dilation does not *explain* the measurement of light speed as c.
Time dilation is one of the *consequences of* the way we measure
times and distances of remote events.

Now, take a few weeks and read a bit on
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
If you have specific questions, ask away, but try to ask
one question per message.

>
> I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant, by the way. Just trying to
> resolve what
> appears to me to be logically inconsistent. I'll be just as glad to be
> shown wrong,
> and why, as not.

Take some time...

Dirk Vdm


.