Is relativity I L L O G I C A L?

[mike3]

On Mar 25, 1:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

Strich says it is.  

 http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NiceAndEasy.html

I'm curious. What exactly is the _flaw_ in this statement, anyway?
I.e. _why_ is
it wrong? Because I want to learn something about relativity (not make
kooky
bogus critiques of it.).
<snip>

[Dorn.Strich]

[...]

And obtained the highest scores.  As I said, physics is second nature
to me...

Explain what the difference between gauge invariance and Lorentz
invariance is.
[...]

Knowing you as a crook, that is probably your homework for this week,
and you want somebody's help...

All you have to say is "I don't know".

Then learn from your own little wisdom.  It won't help you pass though.

I already know the answer, Dave. I didn't sleep through those classes.

We already know you are a liar, so your little lie is noted.

Having a university education in physics helps.-

What education?  Do you have a diploma to prove it?

Why ask the question when you don't care what the answer is?
Paul has his PhD in physics. Yet you think your high school physics
education is gold.-

Paul's degree is not yours.  Back to the question: Do you have a
diploma?

Again, why ask the question when you don't care what the answer is?
Paul has more experience than me and you don't respect his opinions as
a physicist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

What's your point Gisse?  A degree does not guarantee understanding.
Neither does it prevent people from lying.  

As evidenced by your massive intellectual dishonesty in every argument
in addition to the blatant lies you expend much effort into creating
and defending.
[...]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So why are you lying Gisse? You don't have a diploma yet :-)

[Dorn Strich]

Paul, let me allow you to be right for the moment. Since the
original L1R1 distance was 2m according to C, and the L1R1 distance
is now less than 2m according to O (your calculations) and both are
using standard and equivalent metersticks, then which of the
following happened?
a) L1 moved faster than c.
b) R1 moved slower than c.
c) both of the above.

You seem to be confused between making measurements at two different
times in one frame and making measurements in two different frames.
("the original distance was ... and the distance is now..."). There
is not a "was" measurement and a "now" measurement. There is C's
measurement and O's measurement.
The photons are 2m apart in C's frame. They remain 2m apart in C's
frame, because they are both travelling at c. Every time C makes a
measurement, he finds the photons to be 2m apart.
The photons are 0.54m apart in O's frame. They remain 0.54m apart in
O's frame, because they are both travelling at c. Every time O makes
a measurement, he finds the photons to be 0.54m apart.
Neither photon moves at any speed other than c, in any frame.

Ahhh another idiot.  Your primitive mind seems unable to grasp that
the metersticks held by O and C are identical.  So if the distance is
Which of the following happened?
a) L1 moved faster than c.
b) R1 moved slower than c.
c) both of the above.

I just told you - neither photon moves at any speed other than c, in any
frame. Try to keep up.- Dölj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

If both photons moved at c, then the distance between them, as judged
by identical metersticks, must remain 2 meters.

In C's frame, the distance does remain 2m. In O's frame the distance
remains 0.54m.
In relativity it's vitally important when referring to measurements that
you specify which frame the measurement is taken in. You can't just refer
to "the distance" and expect it to be the same in all frames.

In physics it's vitally important when referring to measurements that
 you specify which frame the measurement is taken in. You can't just
 refer to "the speed of light" and expect it to be the same in all frames.

People need some constant to cling on. Thus the pseudophysicists love
their constant lightspeed. It does not matter that in 3x10^8 meters
per second, the who measuring the meter is not specified, and the who
measuring the second is not specified.