On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > > > > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an > > > > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's > > > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > > > It IS an over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks > > > running slow. > > > Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners.
Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED.
In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is not required.
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > > > > compression of time for a clock turning around. > > > > WRONG > > > Where is this Einstein?s paper on such provision then? > > > > > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > > > > Einstein's theory. > > > > There is NO paradox > > > In real life, there is no paradox. Any conjecture that manifests a > > paradox is garbage such as SR. <shrug> > > > > > It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of > > > > mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of > > > > contention. > > > > WRONG .. your assumption that the turnaround does not affect the > > > clocks is WRONG > > > Where is the math that shows this turn around thing? > > > > > It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with > > > > Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting > > > > Einstein's theory. Here it is again: > > > > The only irrational one is YOU .. who claim to argue about what SR > > > says.. but refuse to actually use what SR says in full. Just a non- > > > working subset. > > > What SR says is all in the Lorentz transform? When are you going to > > understand the Lorentz transform? > > > > > colp: > > > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > > > Daryl: > > > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > > > and physically nonsense. > > > > > colp: > > > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > > > nothing else. > > > <APPLAUD> > > > [rest of whining crap snipped] > > > Please show the math on the turn around. If not, get lost. > > He (Inertial/whoever/artful) can't do it. He lied when he previously > told me that he did, and then denied claiming that he did after I > called him on it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
