While votes should be for what's actually written in the question, it should come as no surprise that this is a site where humans interact and so grandstanding tends to attract negative attention more than it does positive.ĭoes this show that there might be some contributors who have mistaken me for a crank.Īs a dissident scientist, I could finally publish some articles against Einstein's relativity, showing that the theory is paradoxical, in some ordinary peer-reviewed journals. There was extensive discussion in comments to your question - long since moved to chat - where you made remarks like "Please upvote the OP's cleverness", referring to yourself.
#Zmodeler 3 how to duplicate free#
You might call it unfair that people would vote you down for that impression if the question itself is still legitimate, but we can't do anything about that, people are free to vote as they see fit.
Maybe that impression is accurate, maybe not, that's not the point here, but it is the impression I get upon reading. In particular, your question opens with "I want to simply eliminate the effect of acceleration, which is the cornerstone in resolving the traditional twin paradox, through the following thought experiment" - regardless of what follows, this really sounds as if you're trying to poke holes into relativity, not as if you're simply wondering about how relativity resolves the situation you're describing. That two questions ask about the same phenomenon does not mean both of them are equally "good questions" in this sense, and your first consideration when reading another question that is better received than your own should be "What did this question do better?", not "This shows people vote me down because they don't like me". Votes not only refer to the raw content of a question but also its presentation: How easy it is to read (due to formatting) and understand, how well it makes its argument. There is always a random element to voting.
0 kommentar(er)
