Re: Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

On 10/27/2024 06:07 AM, gharnagel wrote:

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 3:06:16 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

>
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
>
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.

>
Since time is an "abstraction": time does not exist
>

Time does not dilate.
>
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
>
Length does not contract.

>
Since extension in space is an "abstraction": space does not exist
>

3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
>
Space does not curve.
>
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
>
Parallel lines do not meet.
>
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

>
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks
should be.” -- Albert Einstein
>
"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to
believe what is proved." -- Galileo Galilei
>
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall
perish by it.” -- Samuel Butler

Length contraction or time dilation? No, length contraction and time
dilation: space contraction.
Hey, if there isn't aether theory in relativity theory,
at least thusly the space can go along the frames,
for rigid bodies and finite regions.
Curved spacetime? Not so much, it's pretty well-established that
the cosmological constant in the gravitational field equations,
it's a mathematical infinitesimal, i.e. vanishing yet non-zero.
Spacetime curves - it's flat.
Geometry is plainly enough that it's all conformal mappings
in continuous transformations, sometimes that's easier to
visualize or write as "according to perspective and projection",
looking Euclidean either and both ways, while it's, yet
looking Euclidean either and both ways.
Then, geometry for motion needs projective and perspective,
the concepts, curved spacetime the form is also corrected thusly,
and space contraction is rather real and still of course is
quite an entirely a theory with severe abstraction, mechanical
reduction, absolutes and ideals, and a relative perspective or
projection of motion, as with regards to a relativity theory
like Einstein's "GR and then also SR: a Relativity Theory",
that being the same theory itself, then though that many
popularizations and wrongful extrapolations the overbroad
(non-physical) mathematical models, are NOT "Relativity Theory".
What you got there is "non-physical extrapolations of some
classical models of a superclassical physics after Relativity
Theory", not, "Relativity Theory", about absolutes and ideals,
itself.