Antirelativity lesson two: relativity is a mess

[@atheistaetherist2747]

All transforms are rubbish. Especially the time transform. All processes (eg clocks) are affected by the aetherwind, but in different ways, & by different amounts. This is directed at Rindler's krapp at 31:00. The aetherwind does not affect time, it affects lengths of rods etc, & hence affects all clocks all ticking & all processes etc, by different amounts (depending on the say machine involved).. The Larmor gamma & the Lorentz gamma might give goodish numbers for shape change (eg length contraction), but any such gamma is not a transform, transforms are rubbish.

[@hamdaniyusuf_dani]

Have you ever heard about reverse time jump in the explanation for twin paradox?

[@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e]

What I'm seeing here is someone who doesn't have the necessary background in physics to make sense of relativity. For example, reference frames are local (e.g. the tetrad frame) but in the special theory there exists global inertial reference frames so whether you take a reference frame to be local or global is irrelevant. It's not ambiguous. In another example, the special relativity of the Minkowskiverse is owed on Einstein and not Lorentz/Poincare out of consistency with the fact that in Einstein there's no material effect upon matter whereas there is in the case of Lorentz/Poincare there is a physical effect upon matter. I do agree that the presentation of relativity at the introductory level is an unmitigated disaster, seemingly an almost criminal attempt to misinform the student, whereupon graduate level courses you have to unlearn the undergraduate physics because it's exactly the opposite of what relativity theory actually says.

[@rogeranderton418]

Book hasn't properly defined terms.

[@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e]

@@rogeranderton418 I'm sure you think so, but you're just not understanding what's written there.

[@rogeranderton418]

@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e its gibberish as per usual relativity texts

[@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e]

@@rogeranderton418 I am certain you think so. If you show a textbook on organic chemistry to a 3rd grader, it too will look like gibberish. However, it is stupidity to state that "because I don't understand it, it must be wrong". As far as explaining relativity at the undergraduate level (or simpler still) being a complete disaster, then I am all aboard the hate train. Of all subjects that exist or have ever existed, low-level explanations of relativity are the worst in all of history. [note: Advanced level graduate school textbooks on relativity are exemplary, e.g. Hawking&Ellis, Sachs&Wu, MTW, Wald, etc]

[@rogeranderton418]

@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e The book calls itself an introduction, but isn't because it does not properly explain things. Hopefully if your organic chemistry book is an introduction that it properly explains things; if it doesn't then is just as bad.