Thank you for this. The clock paradox occurred to me when I first heard about relatively 30 years ago. I'm not a genius. I just asked a common sense question and never got a common sense answer, only double talk and ridicule. It's clear to me now that those people had no idea, either, they were just arguing from authority. I'm glad someone like you is challenging the Cult of Einstein because it is a pillar of modern scientism and its takedown is long overdue.
Thanks Graham. Relativity defies common sense. Quantum Mechanics is the same. 'Thought experiments' (Galileo was famous for these) without experimentation are meaningless. Einstein never refuted Dingle's common sense complaint - the same one you had 30 years ago. They pull out complicated maths and hit you over the head until you submit. They need to perform a replicable experiment not blind us with maths.
I have been thinking about this and mentioned it to my son who looked at me as if I was a crazy man - is there really no experimental proof that the earth is moving at 66000 MPH around the sun? I was musing in the car as to quite how you might go about proving that. I do not see how you could. Unless you are moving relative to something else how on earth can you say you are moving. The earth could actually be moving in a thousand alternate directions at once and how would we know? Indeed the very concept of movement is hard to comprehend. I gave my son the example of two fish swimming about each other in a moving stream of water. Which is moving around which? The imagine that stream is a current within an ocean on a revolving planet orbiting ( so we are told ) a star.
Good analogy with your son using the fish - fish swimming in an 'ether' or medium - which is rejected by 'The Science'. I am sure it made his head spin. He probably wondered, 'does Dad believe in a flat earth?'. He just accepts at face value that his teachers and 'the science' have already proven that we whizz around at 108.000 km/hr. But no physical, mechanical proof can be offered. In Relativity, there are no absolutes, so as you said, it means we cannot measure anything. This is of course a nonsense since there is no proof anywhere, that there are no absolutes. At least for Newton space was an absolute. But in Einstein's fantasy world, space is a vacuum ie nothing, meaning that there are no absolutes in space-time, and logically there would be no light transmission which is contra-reality. If they can't prove the mobility of the Earth, their dogma has to be re-categorised as 'theoretical'.
Dingle and scientists like him who have criticised the gospel of STR have been very very carefully airbrushed out of history by the cult of Relativity.
Thank you for this. The clock paradox occurred to me when I first heard about relatively 30 years ago. I'm not a genius. I just asked a common sense question and never got a common sense answer, only double talk and ridicule. It's clear to me now that those people had no idea, either, they were just arguing from authority. I'm glad someone like you is challenging the Cult of Einstein because it is a pillar of modern scientism and its takedown is long overdue.
Thanks Graham. Relativity defies common sense. Quantum Mechanics is the same. 'Thought experiments' (Galileo was famous for these) without experimentation are meaningless. Einstein never refuted Dingle's common sense complaint - the same one you had 30 years ago. They pull out complicated maths and hit you over the head until you submit. They need to perform a replicable experiment not blind us with maths.
I have been thinking about this and mentioned it to my son who looked at me as if I was a crazy man - is there really no experimental proof that the earth is moving at 66000 MPH around the sun? I was musing in the car as to quite how you might go about proving that. I do not see how you could. Unless you are moving relative to something else how on earth can you say you are moving. The earth could actually be moving in a thousand alternate directions at once and how would we know? Indeed the very concept of movement is hard to comprehend. I gave my son the example of two fish swimming about each other in a moving stream of water. Which is moving around which? The imagine that stream is a current within an ocean on a revolving planet orbiting ( so we are told ) a star.
Good analogy with your son using the fish - fish swimming in an 'ether' or medium - which is rejected by 'The Science'. I am sure it made his head spin. He probably wondered, 'does Dad believe in a flat earth?'. He just accepts at face value that his teachers and 'the science' have already proven that we whizz around at 108.000 km/hr. But no physical, mechanical proof can be offered. In Relativity, there are no absolutes, so as you said, it means we cannot measure anything. This is of course a nonsense since there is no proof anywhere, that there are no absolutes. At least for Newton space was an absolute. But in Einstein's fantasy world, space is a vacuum ie nothing, meaning that there are no absolutes in space-time, and logically there would be no light transmission which is contra-reality. If they can't prove the mobility of the Earth, their dogma has to be re-categorised as 'theoretical'.
Thanks for the info on Dingle - fascinating stuff
Dingle and scientists like him who have criticised the gospel of STR have been very very carefully airbrushed out of history by the cult of Relativity.
A good thing for us that you are on this.