Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?
Posted: September 21st, 2018, 6:41 pm
Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 5:50 pmYou're mistranslating. It should be: If one frame says something is stationary, and that frame provides a theory of the nature of the underlying reality, and another frame says it's moving, and that frame provides a theory of the nature of the underlying reality, ...David Cooper wrote:If one frame says something is stationary and another frame says it's moving...Translation into correct language: If an object is stationary with respect to one frame and moving with respect to another...
Those claims are automatically made whether you like it or not. All frames provide a proposed version of events which relates to an actual reality, and it either represents is correctly or is misrepresents it. Another consequence of this fact is that all frames assert that the speed of light relative to an object at rest in them is c in all directions. If you claim that there is no contradiction there, then you have necessarily accepted the standard SR dogma which you pretend doesn't exist, though only if you're pushing a set 2 model. You won't spell out which model(s) you're using though, but that's only natural because you don't want to see them being systematically blown out of the water one by one.There is a contradiction though between the claims being discussed: one frame says the object's moving and the other says it's stationary, and it isn't possible for both of those claims to be true.THESE CLAIMS ARE NOT MADE. See above.
If it's relative to the aether, then there are clearly contradictions. How can you possibly imagine otherwise?...the contradiction is then hidden on another level which only shows up when you ask if it's moving or stationary in the underlying reality.What do you mean by "moving or stationary in the underlying reality"? Moving or stationary relative to what? Relative to the aether? If so, then there are no contradictions. See earlier posts.
It has everything to do with SR. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, over and over again, infinitely. You tolerate contradiction. All frames are theorising about the nature of reality - the exact same reality; the only reality - and they're making contradictory claims about it.Whether you read the word "moving" in one way or the other depends on whether you're applying a bias to it, and you're applying an SR bias.For the last time: this has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with the Special Theory of Relativity. My 10 year old son understands this very, very, very simple concept of measuring movement with respect to different reference frames, and measuring the velocity of an object relative to another object. He has never heard of the Special Theory of Relativity.
It has everything to do with the speed of light. The speed of light relative to a stationary object is c in all directions. The speed of light relative to a moving object isn't. You can't separate these facts.You could accuse me of applying an LET bias to the same word, but when we look at the issue of the speed of light relative to the two objects, LET says they cannot both be c in all directions relative to both objects.I will not accuse you of that because this has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with LET. And then you're off onto the speed of light again. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of light.
David, I honestly don't know what's wrong with you, so I really am going to have to give up. If you can't grasp the very, very simple concept of measuring the velocity of one things relative to another thing - a concept that a 10 year old understands - without constantly bringing up the Special Theory of Relativity and the Lorentz Ether Theory and the speed of light and cults and dogma and all the rest of it I'm at a loss as to how to help you.It's yourself you need to help: you are contradiction-blind. You told me the dogma doesn't exist, but it turns out you're running on it and don't even know it.