Re: More speed confusion

On Jun 10, 10:59 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:50 am, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 10, 11:08 am, G <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 10, 1:32 pm, Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jun 9, 8:42 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now where is the difficulty you are having? (Androcles and Sue are
hoeless, but the jury is still out on you, Gehan.)

It seems possible to bring G to the brink of understanding, but
before he crosses the critical threshold, a remarkably potent
instinctive reflex mechanism sets in and drags him all the way
back to the beginning, and it's as if all of our arguments never
happened.

Also, G does not distinguish between different posters. To G,
Androcles, Sue and the alternative Spaceman are on equal footing
with you and Paul.

Jerry

More speed confusion. And equality .

Tell me this: Are relativistic effects real or illusory,
since we know events occur before the light from the events reaches us
(using calculation and logic)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure of your statement that we know of events before the light
reaches us.  If we know the experimental setup, we can maybe predict
the answer, but that is probably not what you mean.

Relativistic effects are real, not illusory.  For example, read the
Wiki articole about Bell's Spaceship Problem.  It may be called
Paradox insted of Problem, but it is not a paradox.  It describes what
are called relativistic stresses that can actually break things.
Breaking things is not a matter of illusion.

When the string breaks you have detected an
absolute inertial frame and broken Einstein's
principle of relativity.

No, that's not right. Both frames see the same physical outcome, and
both frames have the same laws of physics. There is no breakage of the
principle of relativity. You just don't understand what the principle
of relativity says. You just have chosen a web snippet that is
sufficiently vague that you feel free to read into it things it does
not say.


http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Are you presenting your paradox as mathematical
proof to falsify the principle of relativity?

Sue...





Uncle Ben

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Muon hoaksy poaksy
    ... the paradox was in your own theory. ... That is not what the principle ... of relativity says. ... is stationary in one inertial frame, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are these people insane? Seriously.
    ... will be the same in both frames. ... principle of Relativity. ... You are taking this to also be a law a physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Train gedanken pitfall
    ... with the Principle of Relativity" ... in all inertial frames. ... solution to the wave equation in one dimension. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Train gedanken pitfall
    ... with the Principle of Relativity" ... in all inertial frames. ... under the influence of inertia. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The relativity of simultaneity
    ... I intended to say "principle of relativity", ... The principle of relativity says, and says only, that the *laws of ... physics as expressed in mathematical form* are identical in all ... inertial reference frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading