The Special Relativity Fudge of Universal dimensions

The issue is about how SRT obfuscates demonstrates inconsistency regarding the reality of acceleration and it's impact on relative inertial observers.
"On one hand SR treats acceleration in isolation from the universal reality and in the other it is included in that same universe reality."

Me thinks that people espousing SRT validity need to decide whether they want to deal with fiction/fantasy or reality and then stick to what ever they choose...

care to discuss?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You say that as if special relativity has never been put to the test by experiments, which it has. Billions of times in dozens of ways.

And QQ, why is it you continually try to talk about honesty in science when you admit you've never done any special relativity and you actively refuse to read anything about it? Tell me, how can you give special relativity an 'honest hearing' if you refuse to look at the evidence or study the theory?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll post a response with in 48 hours...thanks

 

Nope, I have re-read the question I have asked and it is clear and obvious about what means and requires as a response....
If it is unable to be understood then trying to explain it aint going to make matters any better for you.
so I'll just let it run as it is and watch the thead die "it's natural death".


to AlphaNumeric:

Your post is off topic...

 

Actually, it doesn't make sense, sorry. Although I may be able to extrapolate what you mean.

If you're complaining that SRT doesn't deal with the issue of accelerating reference frames, that's fair enough because it doesn't. This upset Einstein as well, which caused him to come up with GR to fix those problems.

Nonetheless SRT can still deal will a lot of problems that involve acceleration in some way, so long as one is careful.

 

this would be true if you and AlphaNumeric were the only ones doing the reading and even then what would it tell you?
and add to that your SRT is far from clear and obvious....hmmmmm

 

It took you 2 days to come up with that response? Clearly you thought about what I asked you and you couldn't come up with anything to excuse you from the fact you whine about scientific integrity when you have none of your own.

You have started multiple threads about special relativity and claimed that relativity says a lot of things or hinges on a lot of things (ie such things as special relativity is only as valid as the notion of a photon) and the vast majority of those threads have, as James R says, been based on a misunderstanding you have. It is on topic for me to ask you why you insist on saying "Relativity says..." or "Relativity needs...." or "Relativity is wrong if ....." when you admit you've never ever done any relativity.

Can you please explain why you start so many threads like this, whining about relativity, when by your own admission you have done little to no reading about it and never actually done a single calculation involving it.

 

Nope, I have re-read the question I have asked and it is clear and obvious about what it means and requires as a response....
If it is unable to be understood then trying to explain it aint going to make matters any better for you.
so I'll just let it run as it is and watch the thead die "it's natural death".


to AlphaNumeric:

Your post is off topic...