Try to understand this, A-wal: Although SR glibly asserts, as a philosophical matter, that all inertial frames are equally valid, the theory DENYS this in practice.
In SR, an observer is not free to treat the "other guy" as the one moving That is strictly prohibited, You cannot just arbitrarily chose an inertial frame to use for calculation purposes in SR. You MUST (absolutely mandatory, no exceptions) treat the (inertial) frame you are is as a PREFERRED frame which is "at rest."
Utterly false. Any inertial frame can be thought of as at rest. Whenever there's inertial motion there's no distinction between which objects are in motion and which are at rest. There is no preferred inertial frame.
I understand the claims of SR perfectly. Don't take my rejections of the absurd implications of the theory as a "lack of comprehension."
By "understand," I actually mean understand, which is different from merely being able to parrot, from memory, the dictates I have been told to accept without any satisfactory rational explanation.
Yea you say that but then you talk utter nonsense and claim that there are logical contradictions so you clearly don't understand it because if you did you'd see that there are none in sr. You haven't given a single example of how sr is logically inconsistent, all you've done is say that it doesn't make sense to you. You clearly aren't equipped to judge the validity of a model that you're not even capable of grasping yet you think your lack of understand is somehow evidence of a problem with the model.
As much as you smugly and arrogantly pretend to superior understanding, I'm afraid you display none of it. You are, however, a good tool, who will zealously and faithfully recite the "talking points" of SR advocates reflexively and automatically. But that's not "understanding," I'm araid.
Yes, I'm a prime example of a parrot of memorised mainstream science dogma I am.
Smug? Hmm, yea okay fair enough.
Edited by A-wal, 15 April 2018 - 06:30 PM.