Zyxzevn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:47 am
Can the "100 reasons" avoid logical fallacies?
I often see the comparison between aether and relativity.
That is a fallacy, because you never proved that aether was correct.
Another problem is that relativity uses relative observations.
This is not wrong at all.
It is how we see things from a certain observer.
It makes it harder to follow, and more mathematical.
Like what time does the clock on the other object show?
Crowthers is a good source for showing how the maths
in general relativity often mixes up variables (like in "black holes").
I personally like to focus more on the fundamental ideas:
Special Relativity (SR):
Are all physical processes independent of the speed of a neutral observer?
General Relativity (GR):
Is gravity always equal to acceleration?
If the fundamental ideas are wrong we don't need to look any further.
In another thread I already showed that electric charges do not experience acceleration in gravity.
From SR we can look at some consequences..
1. Does length actually change with speed? (length contraction)
2. Does clock-speed actually change with speed? (time dilation)
3. Are there other ways in which we can express a form of relativity and how?
GR is also mixed with a lot of mathematical constructs.
Are these mathematical constructs actually valid?
1. Can we define time as a fourth dimension?
2. Can we express relativity in a simple Tensor transformation?
3. Is energy always conserved in the mathematical system?
4. Does gravity(acceleration) actually bend light?
5. Is parameter lambda > 0 ? Why was this parameter there? What else is possible?
6. Are the tensor equations used in a correct way? Creator of Tensors says: no!
7. etc.