Bug and Rivet

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Nice one. First time I've seen a major physics website
presenting an SR paradox without attempts to obfuscate
using adhoc assumptions. SR paradoxes are irresolvable
if presented accurately since the theory itself is a
logical fallacy.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Agreed. The symmetry in SR is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. Einstein solved the problem by saying that one of two object A and B experienced acceleration, thereby breaking symmetry.

Any theory that is riddled with paradoxes should not get the status of a theory. Enough said.


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

SR physics is one big farce. It's the only theory that works because it is false.

123...0,

Was is not Einstein himself who said that it is perfectly possible to come to the right conclusion using wrong arguments?

I have no problems with relativistic manifestations, but I do have deep-rooted problems with the SR mechanism that is supposed to be causing it.

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />123...0,

Was is not Einstein himself who said that it is perfectly possible to come to the right conclusion using wrong arguments?

I have no problems with relativistic manifestations, but I do have deep-rooted problems with the SR mechanism that is supposed to be causing it.

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Einstein was a very creative person who would've been bored
silly with rigorous logic. The idea of time dilation just
captured the public's imagination- an explanation of a contracted
object is just so much duller than a space that actually contracts.
Not to mention the possibility of time travel. What more could
you want to stir up interest (and hence funding) in the public
for science?

Jan and 123...,

My primary objection to Relativity is the fact that it contains no "causes" for "affects" and gives our observtions a magical content.

Failure of science to question such causes leaves the range of applicability totally open and results in erroneous conclusion of reality at the mathematical extremes.

I have just participated in another MSB regarding "infinity" where a streamline scientists has complimented me (an extremely rare occurance []) for noting that the tendancy of physicists to use the ballon analogy of the expansion of the universe is flawed in that it requires extra dimensions vs using a loaf of rasin bread analogy which gives a closer affect which relies on the simple 3D's.

Further that the Strings theory dimensions are infact more like sub-planck length artifacts within our existing 3D's rather than true dimensions. That to contort ones self to present a concept of a 4D cube is meaningless unless one can also present a 4D sphere.

<b>His response was that he agrees and suggest that science favors the other presentation because it is more sci-fi and generates public appeal.</b>



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.