Absolute Velocity?

GMB said:
Its your theory. You describe it in plain English the best you can. The first postulate contains an outrageous series of bizzare claims.

Like if the light is chasing me at 300 000 km per second and I'm moving at 200 000 km per second then its supposed to be catching me at 300 000 km per second. Which is a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...
Your time has slowed down, your ruler will be shortened the direction of your travel, so to you light catches you at 300,000 km per second, but not to a so-called stationary observer watching it.

To bad you can't and/or will not get your brain around it.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
No my time would not have slowed down. We are just talking rubbish theory is all.
 
GMB said:
No my time would not have slowed down. We are just talking rubbish theory is all.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it is you that is just talking rubbish. The only thing you have shown is you hate.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
GMB said:
Its your theory. You describe it in plain English the best you can. The first postulate contains an outrageous series of bizzare claims.
Click to expand...

No. The first postulate claims that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. The consequences of the two postulates together when applied to certain situations lead to the extraordinary and counter intuitive results. But only when involving motion at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. But since intuition is based on everday experience and relative motion at a significant fraction of the speed of light is clearly not an everyday experience, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a theory to cover such situations should be intuitive. What it does need to be, however, is logically consistent (it is, despite what you think about your precious Dingle refutation) and backed up by experiment (thankfully it is backed up by literally trillions of pieces of experimental data).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom