write4u Posted March 30, 2021 Report Posted March 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, marcospolo said: But with Einstein, not only is it not intuitive, but the explanation is completely irrational, containing inbuilt contradictions and math errors Thanks for the clarification. I'll pay more attention next time I read something on these topics.
marcospolo Posted March 30, 2021 Author Report Posted March 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, write4u said: Thanks for the clarification. I'll pay more attention next time I read something on these topics. Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam. Here is the intro. write4u 1
sluggo Posted April 2, 2021 Report Posted April 2, 2021 Marcos; Presenting more experimental evidence won't help, since you have decided beforehand that it's false based on your preconceived notions. I watched the video you cited. Poor quality, a show & tell, where the person learned a new word 'gamma'. He used it repeatedly, and conveyed nothing.
marcospolo Posted April 2, 2021 Author Report Posted April 2, 2021 5 hours ago, sluggo said: Marcos; Presenting more experimental evidence won't help, since you have decided beforehand that it's false based on your preconceived notions. I watched the video you cited. Poor quality, a show & tell, where the person learned a new word 'gamma'. He used it repeatedly, and conveyed nothing. Sluggo, this comment is a very weak attempt, actually no attempt at all, ZERO effort on you behalf to counter the videos Math claims. You think that your simple statement that "the video conveys nothing" counts as suitable response to a detailed explanation of a Mathematical error? You think that you "poo Pooing" the video would get you far in any debate involving pure math? Sorry, but your pathetic response can only mean that you do not have any counter to the authors claims in his detailed video. Clearly you have only verbal personal attacks remaining to offer which always lose against rational solid mathematical examples.
Simon4159870717 Posted April 7, 2021 Report Posted April 7, 2021 On 3/30/2021 at 7:43 AM, sluggo said: In GR, a clock runs faster the farther away from the mass. It gains time, relative to a surface clock. It is actually recovering time lost if it had not approached the mass or was built on the surface. The equation for this is not the same as for translational td. There are other explanations for the fact of atomic clocks on satellites besides the theory of relativity, but you just don't want to know it and just focus at the theory of relativity.
Recommended Posts