quickquestion Posted April 25, 2017 Author Posted April 25, 2017 I didn't watch more than a few seconds of your video (which, for me, is exceptional; I normally refuse to watch videos completely). It is an analogy for your monumentally stupid "grandmother paradox". How is it monumentally stupid, when it is an evolution of the Twins Paradox which Einstein thought of himself. And I thought of it on my own before even hearing the Twin paradox. Also, the paradoxes in my video have evolved and are superior to the grandmother paradox and twin paradox. Also, why are you biased against videos. You seem to be anti-ignorance of others but willfully refuse to watch video informational content.
Strange Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 How is it monumentally stupid, when it is an evolution of the Twins Paradox which Einstein thought of himself. It isn't anything to do with the twins paradox. It is just some meaningless nonsense that you made up. Also, why are you biased against videos. Because I think it is a terrible medium of communication (especially for technical material). And I have to go out of my way to be able to watch them. And because most of them are not worth watching. 1
Mordred Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) The twin paradox isn't a paradox it is a result of not properly doing the math. Your GR textbooks in your video should have the proper solution for it. Edited April 25, 2017 by Mordred
quickquestion Posted April 25, 2017 Author Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) It isn't anything to do with the twins paradox. It is just some meaningless nonsense that you made up. Because I think it is a terrible medium of communication (especially for technical material). And I have to go out of my way to be able to watch them. And because most of them are not worth watching. It is slightly similar to the twins paradox, but different. Also, video contains videos of motion. Physics is all about motion for me, but for you it is I wonder is it more about the motion of math than the videos of motion, The twin paradox isn't a paradox it is a result of not properly doing the math. Your GR textbooks in your video should have the proper solution for it. Einstein, of course made the paradox in order to prove it was a false paradox. Essentially, it was a canned audience member to give credibility of the trick for the audience. The paradoxes I listed in my video are not constructed to be proven wrong, but to truly challenge and show the fallacies in relativity. Edited April 25, 2017 by quickquestion
Mordred Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 The twin paradox isn't a paradox it is a result of not properly doing the math. Your GR textbooks in your video should have the proper solution for it. Actually looking at the books in your video I take that back. Read better books on the subject. The Mathius Blau article I linked shows the solution.
Strange Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 It is slightly similar to the twins paradox, but different. It is different in that the twin paradox describes something that really happens, as described by SR, while yours is a fairy tale that has no basis in theory or reality.
Mordred Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) It is slightly similar to the twins paradox, but different. Also, video contains videos of motion. Physics is all about motion for me, but for you it is I wonder is it more about the motion of math than the videos of motion, Einstein, of course made the paradox in order to prove it was a false paradox. Essentially, it was a canned audience member to give credibility of the trick for the audience. The paradoxes I listed in my video are not constructed to be proven wrong, but to truly challenge and show the fallacies in relativity. Why not study instead of making foolish statements such as this. The twin paradox came after Einstein. It arose when others incorrectly applied his theories Edited April 25, 2017 by Mordred
Strange Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 Physics is all about motion for me, but for you it is I wonder is it more about the motion of math than the videos of motion, And one of us understand it and one doesn't. Why do you think that might be?
quickquestion Posted April 25, 2017 Author Posted April 25, 2017 It is different in that the twin paradox describes something that really happens, as described by SR, while yours is a fairy tale that has no basis in theory or reality. Move on from the grandmother's paradox. I've made bigger and better paradoxes in my new video, which you won't watch. Actually looking at the books in your video I take that back. Read better books on the subject. The Mathius Blau article I linked shows the solution. I have no doubt they will prove the twins paradox is not a paradox. However the question is, can you prove my purely logical paradoxes false, without resorting to calculus and lagrangians. And one of us understand it and one doesn't. Why do you think that might be? If you are so great at physics I bet you can't solve a tire riddle I've been trying to figure out for weeks. Why not study instead of making foolish statements such as this. The twin paradox came after Einstein. From the text I read it said the twin paradox was made by Einstein himself. So if you are right then the text is wrong. And no I'm not going to scour the depths of the internet to find the text...the text may have been wrong. So I would suggest you reduce the amount of wrong texts about science.
madmac Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 Re challenging relativity & promoting aether. Has anyone here mentioned that GTR allows a gravitational aether (ie a space-time field), unrelated to a luminiferous aether ??. In other words both aethers might exist (although STR of course says that luminiferous aether doesn't exist)(& vice versa).
Mordred Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) Move on from the grandmother's paradox. I've made bigger and better paradoxes in my new video, which you won't watch. I have no doubt they will prove the twins paradox is not a paradox. However the question is, can you prove my purely logical paradoxes false, without resorting to calculus and lagrangians. Can you prove your paradoxes are in fact paradoxes and not just misconceptions due to your lack of knowledge on the subject? I can certainly show the errors in your video and we have been covering some of those details since I watched that mess of a video. Bignose has posted numerous times a comprehensive list of tests on Relativity despite your disbelief time dilation is real and has been sucessfully measured numerous times. In far more ways than that article mentions. One example is muons could never reach the Earths surface without time dilation. Its mean lifetime is too short. We test relativity every day in particle accelerators. Specifically the mass/energy relations. How else do you think we can create particles with greater mass than the combined rest mass of the two protons used in the collision? We have placed atomic clocks at various locations that are callibrated to each other and been able to accurately measure time dilation. What tests have you done? Edited April 26, 2017 by Mordred
Bignose Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) I disproved Einstein on a fundamental, logical level. If you believe my error is so obvious, then point out at what stage of the video I have made an error. For example, if you disagree with one of my sims, tell me what equation did I need to put in the sim and why. If you disagree with one of my paradoxes, then point out what part of the paradox you disagreed with. But don't expect me to debate you using chains of complex equations I have never heard, that's no fair. What's really not fair is you showing up and 'hereby challeng[ing] relativity' when you admittedly don't understand it and are ignorant of the literature around it. This would be like saying 'I don't understand the equations of fluid mechanics, therefore I hereby challenge airplanes' and bitching when someone talks about Navier-Stokes (the most famous equation in fluid mechanics). The onus is on you to understand and know a subject before you shoot your mouth off and challenge it. The obviousness of the error is that you can't make predictions that agree with experiments. Again, this would be like saying airplanes can't fly. While watching them take off behind you. There is excellent agreement between relativity and experiment. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong. Appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy. Look, I agree it is some complex math. But the truth is it works. You cannot deny that. In science, you may not always like an idea, but dammit if that idea produces good results, you don't get to just hand waive that away. You have to accept that if your idea cannot make more accurate predictions, that your idea is inferior. Period. Full Stop. No More. Once you get that, then the onus is on you to go back and remedy the error, if you choose to do it. You don't get to just claim that your results are better. It is an objective measure: predictions that agree more closely with experiment is better. Edited April 26, 2017 by Bignose 4
Klaynos Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 ! Moderator Note Fails to meet our minimum requirements for speculations. You may not reintroduce this topic. I'd strongly advise that before you start telling subject experts that they're wrong in the future that you at least understand the basics. Which for any physics means lots of maths. 1
Recommended Posts