Apparent Violation of 1st Postulate of SRT

Russ_Watters said:
The problem wasn't just the word, the rest of the description was pretty poor as well. But using the right words would have helped. Either way, lack of understanding of how to convey a thought is also often a sign of a lack of understanding of how to generate the thought in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm learning more with every response I get...the mature "professional" responses that is.
 
HeyBert said:
I'm learning more with every response I get...the mature "professional" responses that is.
Click to expand...
Your snarky comments imply that you are not. Look, you posted the idea -- you're the one who is on trial here. If you want people to judge your idea and find merrit, you have to be willing to accept that they might not.
 
Thank you all for your feedback on this topic. I know I did not present the idea clearly enough for all to understand (lacked the formal physics education to do so) and frustration abounded in this forum by all as a result. I discussed the matter with another forum member who could explain the principles in a much more clear manner than I found here. As the name implied (Apparent), the actual result was due to the simultaneity of relativity and no contradiction resulted. I have satisfied my curiosity on this topic, which was the point in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top