Read PB, read.
Both SR and QP depend entirely upon the idea that “one cannot know” something, therefore what is true is whatever we show you. “One cannot know” is the wrong kind of thing to say to me. I can know that what you “show” is not possibly true. And thus the burden of proof is upon you.
But if one has no devotion to logic, there is no proof for anything, especially not performances to the masses.
So far, you have shown us that you are lying either about the content of special relativity or about your ability to read about special relativity.
You still have not provided evidence for your claim that SR says, “that X = X + Y and at the same time, X = X - Y for non-zero Y.”
PB, I don’t expect to “convince” you of anything and on another thread, I explained why.
And you have shown that you know to little of SR to be calling someone a liar because they disagree with YOU.
If you can’t understand the words and even pictures, communication with you is a bit pointless. As MM pointed out, you aren’t even trying (because you are too busy trying to defend your religion).
Yeas ago, I noted that the Michelson-Morley experiment had at least 4 logic flaws in it. It was one of the worst presumptuous experiments in Science.
State the logic flaws.
You don’t answer my questions. Why should I bother with yours, phyllo.
And like I said several times, this is for logic minded people.
I’m no longer making statements about SR, this ‘paradox’ or any experiments, so I don’t see the necessity of answering any questions. But you keep making claims about what you know. When someone asks you to support your statements, you just blow them off.
Explanations require the effort of the one listening to them. You don’t want to commit to any effort and PB is committed to counter effort regardless of anything I say. The choice and decision has been yours.
And even though I have no obligation to convince you of anything, I already showed you one fallacy of that experiment. And what did you do? You ignored it and now demand that I give you information, trying to goad me with false accusations of never supporting what I say to anyone.
The truth is that I have said more and supported what I have said than you will ever have the courage to say. Why should I bother with you or PB? You don’t seriously think that your trumped up accusations and name calling mean anything to me, do you.
Yes, because you believe that “convincing” is something that “real men” shouldn’t do.
I suspect this is because in your real life you have never been able to convince anyone of anything. You seem to lack the ability to produce evidence to support an argument.
You are a liar because you lie. You lied about Feynman. You lied about the contents of SR as found in all the orginal texts and in contemporary textbooks. You disagree with the facts, not with me.
You are keen to note things, but never support them.
PB, you are lying about me.
End of discussion.
You need not do anything for me. I merely ask the question. Respond for your other readers, who are probably interested in your answer. Or they should be.
No one is reading this except us (and a few governing monitors). You, PB, and Eugene are stuck in that mindset of thinking that online means wide public display. I don’t share your fantasy.
But as far as giving you a clue concerning why their experiments “seem” to support a theory that cannot be true, read this;
“If it is in the range of experimental error, then it doesn’t exist, equals zero”??
MM and FC participated and may still be reading.
They are part of the “us” that I mentioned.
But they have their own minds and their own questions.
You and especially PB serve as little more than cultish harpies.
Your minds and words are bound and limited by fear and faith.
Okay, if I’m just being a pest, then I’ll leave. :-"
I have now given you two fallacies involved in the Michelson-Morley experiment. Did you acknowledge them or even discuss them? Of course not. You merely childishly throw eggs and run away.
I thought I made it clear that I was not participating any more except to raise questions.
I’m not going to do the back and forth exchange that you seem to want. And I have already explained why.
As did I. You haven’t the courage of your convictions.
You fear commitment even to your own thoughts.
Fallacies that exist only in your own mind but that aren’t involved in any actual science.
So far, you’ve given us lies about Feynman, lies about SR, lies about Michelson-Morley…
And after three years, the best you can come up with for a “solution” to this paradox is that the things you said were equal aren’t actually equal.
I haven’t lied about anyone, including you PB when I said that it is you who is the liar.
And as always, you contribute nothing but ad hom attacks on posters rather than any actual reasoning = “Harpy”.
You are here merely to support your cult/church at any cost.
By raising questions, I might learn something.
But all your responses are silly attacks.