Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 3:57 pm

Steve3007 wrote:How was it determined that light moves at a constant speed relative to all observers?
David Cooper wrote:It wasn't. It was determined by measurements that it appears to move at a constant speed relative to observers if they built into their measurements an assumption that light is moving relative to them they at c from the start. They then read back out the same assumption at the end, getting back exactly what they put in.
This is not true. Read some background to Special Relativity.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:03 pm

They are also a simplification which depends on relativity for producing right answers in all frames, failing to consider the underlying reality. That makes them highly misleading if you imagine that they provide any insight into this.
The equations that describe the behaviour of such things as magnets and electric currents don't depend on Einstein's Relativity. They pre-date it. Have you really not learned anything about this stuff? Don't you remember such things as Fleming's Right-hand Rule and Coulomb's law and all that stuff from school?

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper » October 4th, 2018, 4:05 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 3:57 pm
Steve3007 wrote:How was it determined that light moves at a constant speed relative to all observers?
David Cooper wrote:It wasn't. It was determined by measurements that it appears to move at a constant speed relative to observers if they built into their measurements an assumption that light is moving relative to them they at c from the start. They then read back out the same assumption at the end, getting back exactly what they put in.
This is not true. Read some background to Special Relativity.
What I said is precisely true. It has never been determined that light moves at a constant speed relative to all observers, but merely that it moves at a constant speed (in any models where it moves at all). Don't be misled by what you've read in establishment sources.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:08 pm

David Cooper wrote:I looked into it and found it to by irrelevant. I did ask you before to show me how Maxwell's Equations produce a speed of light relative to an experiment without using any distance terms loaded with biased values based on the experiment being at rest, but you failed to do so.
Faraday's experiments were not performed on the assumption that the experiment was at rest relative to anything.
I have deliberately not asked you a direct question about this up to now just to see how long you go on avoiding it, but it's now time to push you.
Please start here:

viewtopic.php?p=320758#p320758

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper » October 4th, 2018, 4:09 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 4:03 pm
They are also a simplification which depends on relativity for producing right answers in all frames, failing to consider the underlying reality. That makes them highly misleading if you imagine that they provide any insight into this.
The equations that describe the behaviour of such things as magnets and electric currents don't depend on Einstein's Relativity. They pre-date it. Have you really not learned anything about this stuff? Don't you remember such things as Fleming's Right-hand Rule and Coulomb's law and all that stuff from school?
I said they depend on relativity - not Einstein's relativity. It is only because there is such a phenomenon as relativity that those equations always work. The correct equations would need to take into account different speeds of light relative to experiments and make adjustments accordingly, but you can get away without doing that precisely because relativity (not a theory of relativity, but the physical phenomenon of relativity) hides your mistakes.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:11 pm

What I said is precisely true. It has never been determined that light moves at a constant speed relative to all observers, but merely that it moves at a constant speed (in any models where it moves at all). Don't be misled by what you've read in establishment sources.
Please tell me your understanding of how these "establishment sources" describe the development of Special Relativity as a generalization of the Galilean Principle of Relativity to encompass not just Newton's laws of motion but the laws of electromagnetism. Until you can do that, I'm not convinced that you know what it is that you're rejecting.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper » October 4th, 2018, 4:16 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 4:08 pm
David Cooper wrote:I looked into it and found it to by irrelevant. I did ask you before to show me how Maxwell's Equations produce a speed of light relative to an experiment without using any distance terms loaded with biased values based on the experiment being at rest, but you failed to do so.
Faraday's experiments were not performed on the assumption that the experiment was at rest relative to anything.
Does he use distance terms, and if so, how does he measure them.
I have deliberately not asked you a direct question about this up to now just to see how long you go on avoiding it, but it's now time to push you.
Please start here:

viewtopic.php?p=320758#p320758
[/quote]

Avoidance yet again. You are changing frame for the two parts. The maths from one frame is this:-

D = S
L = E
D > L
S > E

The maths from the second frame is this:-

D = S
L = E
E > S
L > D

You are trying to combine the two things so that you take D > L from the first frame and E > S from the second, but in doing so you deny that D = S and L = E. You are, as I've said before, making a mockery of mathematics.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:22 pm

David Cooper wrote:Does he use distance terms, and if so, how does he measure them.
You tell me.
Steve3007 wrote:Please tell me your understanding of how these "establishment sources" describe the development of Special Relativity as a generalization of the Galilean Principle of Relativity to encompass not just Newton's laws of motion but the laws of electromagnetism. Until you can do that, I'm not convinced that you know what it is that you're rejecting.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:23 pm

David Cooper wrote:Avoidance yet again.
Steve3007 wrote:Please start here:
viewtopic.php?p=320758#p320758

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper » October 4th, 2018, 4:26 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 4:11 pm
What I said is precisely true. It has never been determined that light moves at a constant speed relative to all observers, but merely that it moves at a constant speed (in any models where it moves at all). Don't be misled by what you've read in establishment sources.
Please tell me your understanding of how these "establishment sources" describe the development of Special Relativity as a generalization of the Galilean Principle of Relativity to encompass not just Newton's laws of motion but the laws of electromagnetism. Until you can do that, I'm not convinced that you know what it is that you're rejecting.
What I'm rejecting is any idea that the speed of light relative to all observers is c. It clearly can't be. You simply reject all frame measurements of the speed of light relative to anything that's moving in that frame, only accepting the measurements as correct for objects that are at rest in that frame. You're just going into full diversion mode now because you've been pushed into a corner and have no way out.

We know absolutely that D = S and that L = E because these pairs of clocks are accompanying each other and must be ticking at the same rate as each other. So, we can then say:-

If D > L, then S > E.

and

If E > S, then L > D.

But you don't accept that. You want something impossible instead: D > L and E > S.

Mathematics tells you you're wrong, but you just ignore that and carry on regardless.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:29 pm

While I'm here, I may as well post the replies I wrote to points in this post:
viewtopic.php?p=320858#p320858
David Cooper wrote:That's why you keep making mistakes - you fail to separate out the incompatible models that have been mixed together by the establishment in order to pretend they have a working model. They don't have one though - the best they've got is a block that they cannot generate in a rational way and within which there is no action at all.
Since this "establishment" is an ill-defined term and no specific mention is made of its individual claims, this is a meaningless statement. I guess you might be referring to physics textbooks. Since you consistently refuse to demonstrate what you know about them, I strongly suspect that you don't actually know what it is that you are rejecting.
You're simply blind to manifest contradictions because you've been done over by a powerful mind virus, just like religious people who lose the ability to reason.
More irrelevant speculations as to my state of mind.
A magic block that was never generated in order of causation is not physics, but pure fantasy. If you're going to have a block universe, you need to grow it in order of causation in order for causality to be real...
Physics is the process of creating general rules, and models, by observing the patterns which link individual observations. These rules and models are abstractions whose purpose is to describe and predict observations. Any such "block" that you might be considering is an example of one of these abstractions. Either it's useful for describing and predicting observations or it isn't. It stands or falls by that criterion alone. When you talk here, and on your website, about your imagined necessity for this block to be somehow "generated", as it were, from the bottom up, you reveal (it seems to me) a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of models and theories in physics.

I could speculate as to why that is. I could try to link it to your apparent very strange objectification of other non-physical concepts, like "hate", in other topics. These might indicate your inability to get your head around the idea of an abstraction - something that represents relationships between observables but isn't an observable itself. But then I'd be going down your route of repeated speculations as to the state of mind of my interlocutor. This is against the rules of the forum for good reason.
...That's why the only simulation you'll find anywhere on the Web that shows event-meshing failures is mine...
As I've said before, the reason why you alone concern yourself with "event-meshing failures" is that the concept represents your misunderstanding of what a 4D spacetime graph is and what the concept of a worldline means.
If you want to show me I'm wrong, you need to write a program to simulate the same simple event that my simulation covers and show how you avoid event-meshing failures while generating the block. You won't manage it because it's impossible.
I could write a program to demonstrate more clearly, using animation, where you're going wrong in our considerations of the "twin paradox" involving 4 clocks. It would illustrate that each of the 3 experiments transforms into the other, without changing the relative velocities within the experiment, by changing the frame from which the experiment is considered. This is what I've previously explained in words.

But I'd probably write it in C# using MS Visual Studio. It would be quite a bit of work for me to write it in a form that I could easily share with you. And I'm almost certain that it would do no good. So the effort doesn't seem worthwhile. Still, if we can think of an easy way to do this I'd be up for it, as well as writing and sharing other simulations. I had considered writing a program that could output an animated GIF that I might be able to embed in a post on this site. But I tried it, and this site doesn't seem to support GIFs.
Whenever you change frame, you change the speed of light relative to the arena and its content.
The speed of light as measured by all observers is a constant. I've described, briefly, how this was arrived at empirically elsewhere. Given this empirical fact, the task is not to simply make the above-quoted assertion. It is to consider carefully the implications of this empirical fact by considering that the units of speed are distance divided by time and that, if the speed of light is measured to be the same by observers who are moving relative to each other, something interesting must be happening to distance and time.
If you start with the arena's frame and an object at rest in it, when you switch to a frame moving at 0.99c relative to the arena, you now assert that the speed of light relative to that same object as 0.01c in one direction and 1.99c in the opposite direction.
We assert no such thing. This is where you keep going wrong. You don't just leap in and claim that things are asserted when they're not. You need to start with what the experimental evidence tells us and then follow the logical consequences of that. A logical consequence which stems from an empirical measurement is not a separate assertion. It is an extension of that empirical measurement. It is true if the measurement was made accurately and false if it was not.

The invariance of the physical constants which represent the observed strengths of the electric and magnetic forces leads directly to the invariance of the physical constant that is 'c', via a very simple mathematical relationship. So the invariance of 'c', as measured by any observer is a direct result of the invariance of these other constants as measured by any observer.

Now we look at the logical consequences of this. The empirical validity of Maxwell's Equations (demonstrated by such things as Faraday's experiments) means that we cannot assert that anyone will measure the speed of light to be anything other than 'c'. So, logically, we have to examine more carefully the elements of the concept of speed - change in position divided by change in time. And what logically comes out of that is that there is no single, universal "Newtonian" time. Different observers carry clocks and measure their own local time. When they observer the clocks of different observers, separated from them in space, we have to very carefully consider precisely what they're doing.
If you consider both frames to be telling the truth about the reality as to how fast light is moving relative to the object (i.e. the underlying reality),
Without ever clearly defining your concept of "underlying reality".
...you have the following contradictions: 1 = 0.01, and 1 = 1.99. (By extension, you also have 0.01 = 1.99.) Those are contradictions that any normal person would recognise,...
If you stick to the business of physics and follow the logical consequences of observations you have no contradictions. You haven't defined what you mean by a "normal person" but is seems clear that you mean a person using common sense and instinct. Common sense is derived from human-scale surface-of-the-Earth experience. It has fooled people for many years. That is why Aristotle's physics was replaced by Newton's.

Any person who is capable of following a logical argument, and thinking very, very carefully about precisely what is being done when we measure/observe things, can see that there are no contradictions in Special Relativity.
...but you've been hypnotised into not being capable of seeing them.
More state-of-mind speculations. Given your strange comments here, and your strange comments about the concept of "hate" in a different topic (seemingly trying to objectify it into an unambiguously measurable quantity), I could come up with my own theories as to your state of mind. But I don't do that. I stick to the substance of the argument. Please do likewise.
...If you don't consider both frames to be telling the truth about the underlying reality though, then you accept that they are merely telling you how things appear, in which case you should be free to consider the underlying reality and to wonder what's really going on there.
The "underlying reality" is that which is invariant for all observers - the things that do not change when we change observers. It is the thing that all observations have in common. The business of physics is to discover it. The thing which is invariant between all observers is the laws of physics. That's the whole point of them. The speed of light, as measured by any observer/experimenter, either by measuring the strengths of the electric and magnetic fields or more directly, occurs as a constant in the laws of physics. Therefore the speed of light is constant as measured by all observers.
You're stuck though in a place where you are governed by dogma (which you've been programmed to deny) because your ability to reason independently has been destroyed. Maybe religious genes are involved too.
More state-of-mind speculation, including one of your frequent irrelevant references to religion.
You're grasping at straws, inventing errors on my part that don't exist. I'm fully aware that both clocks measure each other as running slow while they're moving relative to each other. What matters is that when they're reunited, one of them finds out that its measurements were misleading because it's recorded less time than the other clock.
No. To be clear: they calculate each other to be running slow based on their respective measurements during the trip. When re-united they observe that the travelling clock has ticked fewer times than the clock that stayed at home. This doesn't mean that anything was misleading. It is a simple consequence of the fact that the travelling observer switched between two different inertial reference frames. Halc and Tamminen have already spelled this out with a numerical example. I have now repeated that example with more detail.
I know you don't like different models being mentioned, but I have to keep mentioning them to try to help you understand that you aren't allowed to mix incompatible models to crate fake "fixes" for problems that have no solution.
I'll stick to describing what is actually empirically observed and what abstract models and theories can be logically constructed to describe and predict those observations. Rather than just citing model numbers.
The static eternal block models don't run time but rely on magical creation.
A meaningless statement to make about a mathematical model.
The models that run time without clocks running slow always create event-meshing failures.
There is no such thing, in this context, as an event meshing failure.
In this discussion of contradictions though, we are focused solely on models with running time where some clocks run slow, and the clock that makes two legs of a trip to the one leg of another clock where they start together and are reunited at the end always runs slow on average compared to the other clock. That is the starting point for the analysis, and it severely restricts the possibilities as to what happened to enable that clock to run slow.
See the descriptions elsewhere of what happens when the travelling observer changes inertial reference frames.
Of course it doesn't, but when you change frame, you often change key hidden details as to which clock is ticking more quickly than which, and that's where you make your error time and time again.
If you change the reference frame from which you are considering the relative movements of the clocks/observers in the experiment you do not change those relative movements. Changing the way that you view the experiment does not changes the facts of the experiment - the relationships between its participants. This is what you seem not to be able to get your head around.

Clocks 1, 2, 3, and 4 all move at various speeds relative to each other. No matter which frame from which I decide to consider the experiment, this does not change. If I decide to consider the experiment from a frame that is moving at speed 10v relative to clock 1, this does not change the relative movements within the experiment. So I can do this with impunity. As I've said, when we do this we find that each of the 3 experiments are the same experiment, just mathematically transformed relative to each other.
You're blind to it though because you've been taught that this illegal move is legal. It is legal in set zero models because there is no running time there, but it is not legal in set 2 and 3 models. Every time you change frame, you fool yourself.
Your concept of there being "no running time" is physically meaningless. You keep forgetting that a 4 dimensional graph of the worldline of an object is an abstract mathematical construction.
The failure is all yours, and it comes from powerful brainwashing which has left you incapable of judging what's going on. I've never yet encountered anyone in your position who can be deprogrammed though, which means that you're probably never going to understand your error.
More relevance-free speculations about state of mind.
Fact A: the clock that did two legs ran slow. That's an observed reality - it's the best measurement we have.
Yes, when they are reunited the clock that changed reference frame halfway through the journey is seen to have registered fewer ticks than the clock which stayed in the same reference frame througout.
Fact B: it is mathematically impossible for that clock to have run slower than the stay-at-home clock on average without ticking slower than the stay-at-home clock on one or other of those legs.
No it isn't, because you are not considering what is observed by the two clocks during the transition between reference frames of the travelling clock and (apparently) not carefully considering the difference between what each clock directly observes of the other clock, and what each clock infers from those observations from the point of view of a particular reference frame.
Fact C: This leads to the conditional truth: if Lorentz's clock ran slower than mine on the first leg, then (when the reverse experiment is carried out at the same time in which Einstein's clock accompanies Lorentz's on the first leg but keeps going (when Lorentz turns back) is later caught by yours when you're racing after it after hanging out with me for a while when L and E set out) we know that your clock ticked faster than Einstein's while you were waiting with me.
I think it's best to look at Halc's and Tamminen's description of this, with specific numbers used, and then look at the more explicit description that I will post later, using those same numbers.
That is for rational people an undeniable asymmetry. This conditional truth means exactly what it says, and no amount of establishment voodoo can override it.
Symmetry means invariance through transformation. We all learn about it in the context of geometry when we're at school, considering geometrical transformations - rotations and reflections.

As I've demonstrated, the 3 experiments are symmetrical in this sense.
There's a ruddy great contradiction there every time you change frame,...
As explained, there isn't.
...but you've been hypnotised into not seeing that. This is why I see the establishment as a religious cult. You have been rendered incapable of understanding some of the most basic things in real physics.
More irrelevant state-of-mind speculations and non-specific attacks on ill-defined groups such as "the establishment".
No - I'm doing physics, while you're inadvertently doing witchcraft instead...
Meaingless.
...You're allowing yourself to be misled by measurements made using different frames which you naively take at face value.
A measurement which is accurately made has the same status as any other measurement, by any other observer, that is also accurately made. We take them all at face value and then try to find what they have in common. The thing that they have in common is referred to as the laws of physics. It is a set of abstract concepts that describe patterns (commonalities) between observations. That's it's job.
The existence of the underlying reality is revealed by a clock running slow after going on a journey and returning. It runs slow on average, but you switch frame between making measurements and believe that it's always running at full speed while all other clocks are magically running slower unless they're co-moving with yours. You are incapable of recognising the mathematical necessity for your clock to run slower than the stay-at-home clock on at least one of the two legs of your trip,...
TODO
...and that's sad. I don't know how so many people are so susceptible to such brainwashing, but it is so common that it is very much the norm. Perhaps it's something genetic that predisposes people to become victims of this, because we've had enormous numbers of people being killed for going against religious authorities for thousands of years - the more rational ones were the ones who were taken out.
Yet more irrelevant state-of-mind speculations.
You're doing religion - not physics. If you were doing physics you would recognise that the only reliable measurement you make in all this is the one that shows unambiguously that your clock ticked more slowly on average than the stay-at-home clock, but you assert the superiority of the other measurements which conflict with that.
I assert no such superiority. As already explained, a measurement which is accurately made has the same status as any other measurement, by any other observer, that is also accurately made. We take them all at face value and then try to find what they have in common. The thing that they have in common is referred to as the laws of physics. The laws of physics are, if you insist on using this term, the proposed "underlying reality".
The fact is that if the speed of light is c in all directions relative to one clock, it cannot be c relative to any clock that is moving relative to that first clock, but you deny this basic fact, and as soon as you do that, you abandon physics in favour of magic.
Already covered.
The point is exactly as I stated earlier. If my clock is ticking faster than Lorentz's during the first leg of his trip, your clock is ticking faster than Einstein's on the fist leg of your trip. Alternatively, If your clock is ticking more slowly than Einstein's on the first leg of your trip, then my clock is ticking more slowly than Lorentz's on the first leg of his trip. Either way, its asymmetrical. You are incapable of accepting these mathematical necessities,...
See various other comments. You've failed to grasp what is observed, and what is inferred from those observations by the observers, when an observer changes inertial reference frames.
...and that's why you're doing religion rather than physics.
Irrelevant comment.
You are simply rejecting logical reasoning (which is part of mathematics). In doing so, you are showing yourself to be plain irrational, just as religious people do when they reject reasoning. All the above options are valid possibilities and they all come from the only reliable measurement made, which is the one that showed a clock has undeniably run slow. You want to reject that measurement in favour of the inferior measurements of apparent relative ticking speeds which we know conflict with the underlying reality.
All covered previously. A combination of more irrelevant state-of-mind speculations and incorrect statements about the role of observation in the creation of the laws of physics.
Again, just flat rejection of reason. That's what it all comes down to - you aren't rational. You're part of an establishment which is really just a church posing as a branch of science.
More irrelevant state-of-mind speculations and talk of "the establishment". Stick to the argument.
None of it's irrelevant. All of it's correct (and any competent mathematician will tell you so), but you simply don't respect reason at all. Like religious people, you claim to be rational while making a mockery of reason and mathematics.
As above.
That's because you rely on being slapdash and on incompatible-model mixing in order to hide your errors from yourself. It's clear that you've gone as far as you can with this though - your thinking is firmly locked. You aren't seeking truth here at all - all you're doing is digging in to defend establishment errors...
Etc etc.

On we go with the endless talk of establishments.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper » October 4th, 2018, 4:30 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 4:22 pm
David Cooper wrote:Does he use distance terms, and if so, how does he measure them.
You tell me.
Yes he uses distance terms, and the way he measures them builds in an assumption that the experiment is at rest.
Steve3007 wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 4:23 pm
David Cooper wrote:Avoidance yet again.
Steve3007 wrote:Please start here:
viewtopic.php?p=320758#p320758
There's nothing to gain by pointing back at the evidence that you cheat by changing frame. You just can't do this stuff. You cheat yourself out of the truth every single time.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:31 pm

What I'm rejecting is any idea that the speed of light relative to all observers is c.
As I've said, show me first that you understand why that was proposed in the first place, before rejecting it. If you can't do that simple thing, I'm afraid you can't be taken seriously.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7679
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » October 4th, 2018, 4:33 pm

David Cooper wrote:You're just going into full diversion mode now because you've been pushed into a corner and have no way out.
Steve3007 wrote:Please start here:
viewtopic.php?p=320758#p320758

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper » October 4th, 2018, 4:35 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 4:33 pm
David Cooper wrote:You're just going into full diversion mode now because you've been pushed into a corner and have no way out.
Steve3007 wrote:Please start here:
viewtopic.php?p=320758#p320758
You can't do the maths. In any other context you could, but not here when Einstein's original SR model is destroyed by it. You simply refuse to accept reality.

Post Reply