Apparent Violation of 1st Postulate of SRT

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/event
Event; something that happens.

Does this definition not describe a photon that propagates along a linear path from one point to another? Is that not something that happened?

Not trying to be a wise-ass, just giving you an honest laymen use of the word "event" as I have always used it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not all of us are seasoned physics forum veterans familiar with the common use lingo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not the lingo of a forum, it's the very basics of SR, the physics that you are supposedly analyzing.

I suggest that you take the time to learn the physics before you analyze it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Responses to others?

I was the one who first asked why you're the only person to have discovered this "violation".

You say you enjoy "putting the pieces together in interesting ways"? You do to science what Picasso does to portraits.

 

There you go again...nothing but insults. Go be a loser on some other topic, you're boring everyone here with your worthless dribble.

 

Hey Bert, you don't get to have your own facts. Get over it.

 

What are you taking about? Are you in touch with reality?

 

If you have a comment to reference, then reference it and I'll be more than happy to respond. Otherwise, you're just trolling on comments as a group defending in an attempt to defend your egos.

 

This little group tactic may work on the average "cranks" as you call them, but you're all acting like little children in my opinion.

 

Standard average crank response ... ^

 

American "Crank"...and proud of it!

 

Red, White, and Blue BABY...................................

 

Another standard crank response: rather than address the points in a thread, merely claim that people are insulting.

The facts are that there is a very precise set of definitions that are the basics of relativity theory. It is not reasonable to ignore these basics and jump straight to attempting to reject the theory.

 

Seriously...no offense, but do you need glasses? Or mental help?

"You do to science what Picasso does to portraits."

You and your buddies are not fooling anybody. You sit on here and insult people and then pretend you don't? You turn this forum into a joke with your immature responses! You throw around the word "crank" like you are exempt from that category, which I highly doubt. Don't believe I've studied your work in school. You are not scientists or physicists, but critics of original ideas you could never dream of creating yourself. Even if you disagree with the ideas, you do it in the COMPLETE wrong way.

ALL OF YOU NEED THERAPY...And I would bet 2 million dollars I could beat you in arm wrestling, and football, and general manliness.

 

Ooh!
And now we've gone to Standard Average Crank Responses nos 3, 7 and 11.

Almost a tautology ...

 

Okay. You owe me a new irony meter.

 

Excuse me Susan, can't hear your whisper.

 

The problem wasn't just the word, the rest of the description was pretty poor as well. But using the right words would have helped. Either way, lack of understanding of how to convey a thought is also often a sign of a lack of understanding of how to generate the thought in the first place.

 

Can you answer my questions at post 34 Bert?

 

I thought I did at Post# 35. Do you need any further clarification?