Re: A new theory with two postulates


Mike wrote:

PD wrote:
Mike wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:

No theory is infallible.


Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.

Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.

The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.

The twin paradox is an inconcistency arising from the conjunction of:

(1) PoR
(2) Constancy of the speed of light

You'll have to explain, Mike,
a) why these two are mutually inconsistent
b) explicitly what either of them have to do with the twin "paradox"

Have at it.


PD, why should I waste my time and others here to state the obvious?

The subject is explained well in many books. The "resolutions" are
false.

Mike
..

I'd still be interested in hearing your version though, Mike.





PD


It is a strong indication that both (1) and (2) cannot be true at the
same time.

There is no resolution of the SR twin inconcistency. All there is are
attempts to confuse and mislead the majority of those who do not
understand how the issue of inconsistency arises.

The same paradox arises when a free falling observer considers a charge
stationary on the earth's surface. For a stationary observer it does
not radiate. If you apply the PoR it must radiate wrt to the free
falling observer. This shows that the laws of physics do not maintain
their consistency in this case if PoR is applied.

Dr. Folk in this book has a whole chapter on the paradoxes of SR and as
a expert he claims the ony way to resolve it is by considering
accelerations. But this is a red herring. The inconsistency on SR
remains since the paradox can be formulated without having to
accelerate.

Drink a cold glass of water and face the truth. With you all of those
esoteric nuts who support the must insane theory ever put forward in
the history of mankind.

Mike







The Bohr/Einstein debates fomented some wonderful experimental work,
which is the best thing they could have done. Experiments showed
Einstein was wrong about QM.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

SCW


SCW

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new theory with two postulates
    ... Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot ... You'll have to explain, Mike, ... The same paradox arises when a free falling observer considers a charge ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A new theory with two postulates
    ... Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot ... You'll have to explain, Mike, ... The same paradox arises when a free falling observer considers a charge ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A new theory with two postulates
    ... Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot ... understand how the issue of inconsistency arises. ... The same paradox arises when a free falling observer considers a charge ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A new theory with two postulates
    ... Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot ... The same paradox arises when a free falling observer considers a charge ... If you apply the PoR it must radiate wrt to the free ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
    ... Mike wrote: ... He's gobe long time ago. ... Or that the twin paradox is not ... > You and retic are of the same kind: cranks ...
    (sci.physics)