Prev: Proving ranges of force
Next: Points and Solid. Electron vs Earth.
From: Me, ...again! on 17 Jun 2010 16:06


On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, PD wrote:

> On Jun 14, 5:15 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 1:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and
>>>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong.
>>
>>>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect
>>>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which
>>>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which
>>>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ?
>>
>>>>> Was he wrong about them as well?
>>
>>>> Was Einstein right or wrong?
>>
>>>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs.
>>>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise,
>>>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people.
>>
>>> I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is
>>> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years
>>> old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any
>>> credibility.
>>
>>> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti-
>>> Einstein school of thought feel that way.
>>> Some candidate ideas:
>>> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and
>>> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it
>>> cannot possibly be considered right.
>>
>> No the theory calls the absolute rest frame as an inertial frame and
>> then turn around and deny the existence of an absolute rest frame.
>>
>> Ken Seto
>>
>
> It does no such thing. It says the properties of the inertial frame
> are identical to what YOU think the properties of an absolute frame
> has. But YOU are the ONLY one that believes the absolute frame is the
> one frame that has those properties. It is the mixing of what you have
> heard about SR with what you make up from your own head that makes you
> confused.

OK, here is a "thought experiment" for you E/R whips: we have a large
volume of space (say light-year volumes), and two populations of
"particles" N1 and N2. N1 = N2 in number, size, mass distribution, and
in radial root mean square distance distribution from each other, and
also with light year distances from each other. Only difference is N1
is moving as a "flock" in direction different from N2, and both are
in the same large space. All the particles are stars and orbiting cool
bodies. And, there are no other N systems for tens of thousands of
lightyears in any direction. After time, T, the movement reverses, and for
an identical duration. One of two identical twin brothers, who traveled,
at the time, to nearbly purple cool orbiting body is reunited with other
brother on red cool orbiting body.

Is one older/younger than the other? Why?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Proving ranges of force
Next: Points and Solid. Electron vs Earth.