Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

Le 08/08/2024 à 13:41, Python a écrit :

You are highly delusional Richard. It takes only about half a page to
prove that your claims about accelerated frames of reference are:
- logically unsound (invoking tautologies as conditions, claiming
   that a frame dependent property implies a frame independent one)
- contradicting previous claims you had on the twin paradox
- contradicting the principle of Relativity
 Nothing there is invoking SR in any ways. Your lie is exposed,
again.
 You have a psychotic mental bloc (in addition to be a complete
idiot) that prevent you to even consider that something you pull
out of you a** with no justification at all can be wrong.
 This is called "arrognorance". On top of that you have no intellectual
integrity and you are a pathological liar. Just like your buddy Donald
J. Trump.

Please stop talking nonsense on forums, you're not even funny anymore.
You don't even know how to use words anymore.
Tautology, truism: evidence that does not need to be demonstrated.
Tautologies can be very useful in theoretical relativity.
Sometimes tautologies or truisms require a little mathematical research but they still retain their unalterable force.
For example, saying that there are no two natural squares
one of which is double the other, or one of which is triple the other.
In relativity, there are also useful truisms, for example:
"Two conjoined events will be conjoined in all possible frames of reference".
Or "Two identical watches placed in the same place and in the same stationary frame of reference will have the same chronotropy and will mark the same time if they need to measure a universal event".
On the other hand, I did not say that two separate watches, even stationary ones,
mark the same time. I only said that they beat at the same speed because they are stationary and therefore have the same chronotropy. That is a tautology.
Where it gets complicated is when physicists want to be smart and say: "If they are in the same inertial frame of reference, they
mark the same time at the same present moment, that is a tautology, a truism". And there, precisely, no. They are making a colossal error in relativistic concept.
R.H.