Jump to content
Science Forums

Minkowski SpaceTime diagrams re assigned


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, marcospolo said:

But with Einstein, not only is it not intuitive, but the explanation is completely irrational, containing inbuilt contradictions and math errors

Thanks for the clarification. I'll pay more attention next time I read something on these topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

X = ct, this is 100% correct, BUT ONLY FOR LIGHT.  or only when x and ct are both zero. So you cant just plug x = ct into equations replacing x if that x is not referring to light. X distance is

Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam.   Here is the intro.  

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, write4u said:

Thanks for the clarification. I'll pay more attention next time I read something on these topics.

Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies.

I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam.   Here is the intro.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcos;

Presenting more experimental evidence won't help, since you have decided beforehand that it's false based on your preconceived notions.

I watched the video you cited. Poor quality, a show & tell, where the person learned a new word 'gamma'. He used it repeatedly, and conveyed nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sluggo said:

Marcos;

Presenting more experimental evidence won't help, since you have decided beforehand that it's false based on your preconceived notions.

I watched the video you cited. Poor quality, a show & tell, where the person learned a new word 'gamma'. He used it repeatedly, and conveyed nothing.

Sluggo, this comment is a very weak attempt, actually no attempt at all, ZERO effort on you behalf to counter the videos Math claims.

You think that your simple statement that "the video conveys nothing" counts as suitable response to a detailed explanation of a Mathematical error?  You think that you "poo Pooing" the video would get you far in any debate involving pure math?

Sorry, but your pathetic response can only mean that you do not have any counter to the authors claims in his detailed video. Clearly you have only verbal personal attacks remaining to offer which always lose against rational solid mathematical examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 7:43 AM, sluggo said:

In GR, a clock runs faster the farther away from the mass. It gains time, relative to a surface clock. It is actually recovering time lost if it had not approached the mass or was built on the surface. The equation for this is not the same as for translational td.

There are other explanations for the fact of atomic clocks on satellites besides the theory of relativity, but you just don't want to know it and just focus at the theory of relativity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...