wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Gerald
No everybody doesn't know that there appears to be paradox in
relativity There are no paradox in relativity regardless of books
you've read. If you think your misunderstanding of the theory,
constitutes a problem for the theory, you are mistaken.

I'll translate it to you with slightly polarised words:

I don't need your translation.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you needed it, as you show not to understand
anything of his words.

- Almost everyone here rejects Einstein's explanation of what he called
the
Twin Paradox (one likely exception : Ken Tucker).
- O'Barr isn't offended by SRT as defined in physics but by Einstein's
explanation of it, and he *defends* SRT by showing that there is no such
paradox with Lorentz's explanation (neither the one below nor the one
of
Einstein) .

Speak for yourself.

Fine, but as it doesn't seem that you understood the above, it likely won't
help:

- Almost everyone here, myself included, rejects Einstein's explanation of
what he called the Twin Paradox (one possible exception : Ken Tucker).

- I think that SRT as defined in physics is quite neat, and with Lorentz's
explanation there is no paradox in the problem below nor in Einstein's 1905
clock calculation) .

You said:
SNIP
"This is all logically impossible! It has to be in
error, in terms of what is actually happening. You
cannot really change your velocity towards something,
and not really have a change! In SR, this is a
paradox! It is just impossible for it to have
actually happened, yet you measured it as having
happened! "

It's not impossible because it IS a FACT of NATURE. You only think it
is impossible based on preconception.

That's what is meant with "paradox"...

It is a verifiable fact of nature.

FYI, O'Barr fully agrees with what will be observed.
Here's another one for you: it's an observable fact of nature that when
you
look at me at a distance through a magnifying flass, you observe me as
upside down and shrunk. But it's not observable that I *really* shrunk,
nor
does it make sense to say so! ;-)

Gerald can speak for himself harald.

Sure he can and he does vanep, but did you now understand it?

wrote in message
oups.com...

I did not prove your point. Your point is from your perspective 'it is
impossible'. There is no ether [this is a fact of nature].

Actually, since the magnifying glass here is causal as is the ether,
"there
is no ether" is also certainly *not* a "fact of nature"...

It certainly is a fact of nature that there is no ether. We can
experimentally verify the magnifying glass, and all its properties,
actually exist in nature while we can't experimentally verify the
ether, or any of the properties which you want to attribute to it,
actually exists in nature.

You missed the point: we can only indirectly verify the existence of the
magnifying glass from its effects by its causal properties.
Similarly was the case with atoms, even one century ago. Thus for you "there
were no atoms" until they were visualised by cameras?
That's very uncommon English.

For the ether to qualify as a fact of nature
it would need to be experimentally verified to exist in nature.

I agree: an entity that can only indirectly be verified to exist (for
example an electric field), is not a fact of nature. But to positively state
the inverse is faulty logic.

If you use a
false premis to explain why something 'is' your explanation is false.
If you postulate something [ether] to construct a theory which makes
verifiable predictions then that can become a useful scientific tool.
Now lets ask the question which theory is actually used in scientific
research, SR or LET? If LET was more useful than SR it would be used
[regardless of what Harald thinks].

Assuming that with "LET" you mean Lorentz' explanation of SRT, what do
you
think is the difference for use?

When SR is used to do all the local physics in GR it is an advantage
not to clutter the physics up with archaic concepts such as absolute
frames of reference.

There is no need for it in calculations, everyone agrees on that; in fact
everyone knows that since the time that Newton explained that! Thus there is
no difference in use, regardless of what vanep thinks.

Harald