Re: The true crackpots


mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Luttgens wrote:
>
> "The Srist driving a car moving at 80 km/h says to the SRist sitting on
>
> the road:
> "My watch is going slower than yours!"
> The man on the road replies:
> No, my watch is going slower than yours, because I am the one who is
> moving at 80 km/h!"
>
> According to SR, both are right, but according to logic, both are of
> course wrong. "
>
> PD wrote:
>
> "No, experiment shows both are right."
>
> Which experiment? Anyhow, I'll demonstrate below that both SRists are
> logically wrong.
>
> "Logic would conclude, based on a *postulate* that a clock rates is an
> inherently physical property, that this is impossible. The fact that
> experiment shows that it IS possible, indicates that the postulate is
> in fact incorrect."
>
> Again, which experiment?
>
> "Newtonian physics adopts the *postulates* of the invariance of
> physical
> laws in all inertial frames and the absoluteness of simultaneity and
> time. It then develops some conclusions from those postulates.
>
> Einsteinian physics adopts the *postulates* of the invariance of
> physical laws in all inertial frames and the invariance of the speed of
>
> light, and in so doing abandons the absoluteness of simultaneity and
> time. It then develops some conclusions from those postulates."
>
> Yes.
>
> "Experimental comparison of the conclusions from each against reality
> then determines which set of postulates are the correct assumptions.
> There is *no other way* to determine the truth of the postulates. In
> this test, the Einsteinian postulates are not contradicted by
> experiment, and the Newtonian postulates are. "
>
> The Einsteinian postulates are contradicted by mere logic.
> Let's first assume that the car doesn't move, and that the
> driver's clock and the clock of the SRist sitting on the road tick
> at the same rate.
> After a while, the driver starts his car and accelerates till a
> constant
> velocity v (for instance, 80 km/h).
> The driver then claims that his clock goes slower
> relatively to the sitting SRist's clock by a factor f=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> But the sitting SRist replies that, according to SR, he is moving at v
> wrt the driver, hence that his clock goes slower by the same factor f
> relatively to the driver's clock. What does this logically mean?
> Well, the two slowing down effects cancel each other, hence both
> clocks keep ticking at the same rate.

You are under the mistaken illusion that there is a physical process
that is going on that is actually and physically slowing the clocks
down. This is because you don't understand what a length measurement or
a time measurement between two events actually entails.

Lets get back to the matter of simultaneity and what that has to do
with length measurement, and you'll soon see better. Perhaps.

> Conclusively, both SRists are wrong, and SR is a mere logical
> crackpottery.
>
> It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
> geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
> impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
> or the station was moving).

And are you moving, right now as you sit there, or not?

>
> Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
> physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
> proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?

No, I cannot. Please propose such an experiment. As an educational
leg-up for the brainwashed.

> If you can't, or won't, then I would regretfully think that you
> have been SR brainwashed. Otherwise I would expect you to recognize
> that SR is physically nonsensical.
>
> Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: That Minkowski time intervals cannot be current in both frames.
    ... When you look at something I call a wave, what rule do you use to decide ... Sound, water crashing on the shore, riding on a rollercoaster, ... This is a moving graph, and so we can measure the frequency ... things which a lot of physics students take a long ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Problem with Einsteins Train Thought Experiment
    ... object is not moving directly towards the observer. ... There is no physics in the thought experiment. ... laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: That Minkowski time intervals cannot be current in both frames.
    ... When you look at something I call a wave, what rule do you use to ... second of energy (as sound or electromagnetic radiation) in the ... Yes, but your wave is moving in space and time both, and you ... With a cleaner theory that works, you could get a new physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: That Minkowski time intervals cannot be current in both frames.
    ... When you look at something I call a wave, what rule do you use to ... Yes, but your wave is moving in space and time both, and you ... With a cleaner theory that works, you could get a new physics ... where v and u are speeds relative to the AIR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)