Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

Ha, ha, ha, see Synge's letter to Dingle quoted above. Seriously, dude, are you really asking this in earnest? Can you really be that stupid?  :shocked:

 

Just answer the question.  Or are lame ad hominem fallacies all you have?

[Moronium]

Be sure and forward your answer those posing the "twin paradox" thought experiment; to Hafele and Keating (and all those who repeated their experiment) who got different empirical results; and to the physicists who developed the GPS, now, hear?  They need to know, too.

 

Their theoretical and empirical findings deny that it's possible.  Not that any fool wouldn't know that a priori, but, still.......

Edited March 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

Try reading the maths link I gave you to the page refuting Dingle, you ignorant dumb ***. 

[Amplituhedron]

Ok I've finished my math exploration and the results are shocking even to me. Nothing of relativity remains, not even time dilation.

 

Oh, wow! So no length contraction AND no time dilation, either?  :surprise: Tell us more!

[Moronium]

Try reading the maths link I gave you to the page refuting Dingle, you ignorant dumb ***. 

 

I read it.  Just another long-winded ad hominen attack, full of straw men.  It doesn't answer the question at all.

[ralfcis]

Wait I like maths. Can you send me some maths. I don't care about Dingle though.

[ralfcis]

I did tell you more. You have to read it though. Post 225 for a new derivation and meaning for time dilation.  Posts 15 and 16 is where I disprove length contraction. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The wiki article on Dingle says this:

 

As Whitrow explained in his obituary for Dingle, this is not correct, as it rests on Dingle's mistaken assumption that the conflicting ratios of event times used by Dingle are invariants.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle

 

But anyone who has read it knows that Whitrow just ducked the question by circular reasoning which merely asserts a premise, and then, based on that premise, concludes that it is true.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As I said:

 

But in 1992 a physics professor from Harvard, Hasok Chang, wrote a book which made an exhaustive study of all the papers published in that debate.  He concluded that nobody ever answered Dingle's questions.

 

 

 

Have you read Chang's book?  What's YOUR answer, Amp?  Can you even answer the question without sending someone to an irrelevant link?

Edited March 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But anyone who has read it knows that Whitrow just ducked the question by circular reasoning which merely asserts a premise, and then, based on that premise, concludes that it is true.

 

 

Whitrow:

 

Dingle's requirement is therefore equivalent to adopting the Newtonian concept of universal time, and this is incompatible with special relativity.

 

 

Let's break this down:

 

1.  "Dingle's requirement is therefore equivalent to adopting the Newtonian concept of universal time."  Yes, it absolutely is equivalent to that, just like any viable preferred frame theory.

 

2 .  "...this is incompatiblewith special relativity."  Yes it is absolutely incompatible with special relativity.  So?

 

How does that answer the question?

 

All these authors are trying to argue that Dingle didn't understand SR.  They're right, he didn't. Then they pretend that he was trying to use it to establish his position.  Wrong.  He wasn't writing to apologize for SR, he rejected it, and was criticizing it.  They never begin to answer his basic question.   They just assert that SR has to be true.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-53?do=findComment&comment=370289  (post 885, top of the page)

Edited March 6, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

I read it.  Just another long-winded ad hominen attack, full of straw men.  It doesn't answer the question at all.

Of course you did not read it.

[Amplituhedron]

The wiki article on Dingle says this:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle

 

But anyone who has read it knows that Whitrow just ducked the question by circular reasoning which merely asserts a premise, and then, based on that premise, concludes that it is true.

Wrong!

 

That is exactly what Dingle did not realize -- the bit about invariance!

 

Do try to cogitate for once. 

[Moronium]

Read my post 324, fool.

 

Dingle never argued that SR claimed that they were invariant (which it does not).

 

He was arguing against SR, not for it.  He treated time as absolute, not relative like SR.

 

Just answer the question.

 

How is it physically possible for each of two clocks to run slower than the other?

Edited March 6, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Perspective time.

[Moronium]

Perspective time.

 

 

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question, Ralf?  I asked how it was physically (or logically) possible.

 

I didn't ask if it was possible for some ignorant fool to be mistaken about his own state of motion.  Things like that are not only "possible," but they probably happen millions of times every day.  No question there.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Perspective time. Ok I'm against it too. I'm for proper time causing permanent age difference but relativity believes perspective time causes it with the Rindler metric and spacetime path rules. I don't know enough about GR to say that's how it works but if you want an answer, that's it. Go study it. I gave up because I don't buy relativity's explanation of time  so I don't care anymore what comes after that.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 I'm for causal time causing permanent age difference but relativity believes perspective time causes it... I gave up because I don't buy relativity's explanation of time  so I don't care anymore what comes after that.

 

So what prevalent theory DOES explain the view you favor?

 

Stupid of me to ask, because you've already seen it about 50 times and still have no clue.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Moronium