SR Reciprocity Debunked

[kenseto]

Paul Andersen said:
From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
toward it.
Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
would mean that the earth must move in different directions
simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
The other explanation is that Andersen's understanding of
relativity is kind of faulty....or the SR interpretation of
the muon's point of view is a bunch of Bull.

A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT rejects
the notion of reciprocity. Each muon observer will say that
he is moving toward the earth at high speed and thus avoid the
bogus concept of reciprocity. A paper on IRT is available in
the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Also new theory of gravlity called DTG is included in this paper.

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 9:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Paul Andersen said:
> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
> toward it.
> Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
> would mean that the earth must move in different directions
> simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
> would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.

Good lord what a bonehead.

In order to make it clearer for you, let me restate what Paul Anderson
was trying to say in sharper, cleaner terms so that you cannot possibly
misunderstand it.

"From a reference frame in which a particular cosmic muon is at rest,
the earth is moving at a speed close to c toward it."

Note that there is no frame in which all the cosmic ray muons
approaching the earth are at rest, though there is ALWAYS at least one
frame in which at least one of the muons is at rest.

Paul Anderson thought that you would be able to see that his statement
and mine are identical, but you have a demonstrated inability to see
things like that, and you blame others when you cannot see it.

> The other explanation is that Andersen's understanding of
> relativity is kind of faulty....or the SR interpretation of
> the muon's point of view is a bunch of Bull.
>

Translation: "The other explanation for why I, Seto, cannot understand
what people like Anderson are saying is that it's their fault, not mine,
and what they are describing is bull."

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k4pgr9$6i3$1...@speranza.aioe.org

> On 10/6/2012 9:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> Paul Andersen said:
>> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
>> toward it.
>> Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
>> would mean that the earth must move in different directions
>> simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
>> would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
>
> Good lord what a bonehead.

See also http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoJoke.html
August 2003 :-)

Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:56:45 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 9:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Paul Andersen said:
>
> > From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
>
> > toward it.
>
> > Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
>
> > would mean that the earth must move in different directions
>
> > simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
>
> > would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
>
>
>
> Good lord what a bonehead.
>
>
>
> In order to make it clearer for you, let me restate what Paul Anderson
>
> was trying to say in sharper, cleaner terms so that you cannot possibly
>
> misunderstand it.
>
>
>
> "From a reference frame in which a particular cosmic muon is at rest,
>
> the earth is moving at a speed close to c toward it."

Hey idiot....at rest wrt what? There is no cosmic muon is
at rest. Every object in the universe is in a state of individual
motion in space.

> Note that there is no frame in which all the cosmic ray muons
>
> approaching the earth are at rest, though there is ALWAYS at least one
>
> frame in which at least one of the muons is at rest.

Since there is no cosmic muon is at rest....your statement is bogus.
Just as your failure to understand How SR compare "proper time" between
frames. Gee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:56:45 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 9:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Andersen said:
>>
>>> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
>>
>>> toward it.
>>
>>> Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
>>
>>> would mean that the earth must move in different directions
>>
>>> simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
>>
>>> would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Good lord what a bonehead.
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to make it clearer for you, let me restate what Paul Anderson
>>
>> was trying to say in sharper, cleaner terms so that you cannot possibly
>>
>> misunderstand it.
>>
>>
>>
>> "From a reference frame in which a particular cosmic muon is at rest,
>>
>> the earth is moving at a speed close to c toward it."
>
> Hey idiot....at rest wrt what?

At rest with respect to the reference frame. Do you know what this
means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
this car is at rest?

(If you cannot visualize the reference frame in which this car is at
rest, then you have never understood what a reference frame is.)

> There is no cosmic muon is
> at rest. Every object in the universe is in a state of individual
> motion in space.
>
>> Note that there is no frame in which all the cosmic ray muons
>> approaching the earth are at rest, though there is ALWAYS at least one
>> frame in which at least one of the muons is at rest.
>
> Since there is no cosmic muon is at rest....your statement is bogus.

Each cosmic ray muon is at rest in a particular reference frame, just
like there is a reference frame in which the car above is at rest.

(If you cannot see this, then you have never understood what a reference
frame is.)

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:k4ph41$7c2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k4pgr9$6i3$1...@speranza.aioe.org

> Good lord what a bonehead.

See also http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoJoke.html
August 2003 :-)

Dirk Vdm

====================================

Hey animal!

In the frame of the plane it takes 6 hours from the instant New York

passes the plane until London, 3000 miles away, passes the plane.

What is the speed of the Earth in the frame of the plane?

In the frame of the muon it takes tau seconds from the instant the

top of the atmosphere passes the muon  until sea level passes the

muon, a distance of xi metres.

 

What is the speed of the Earth in the frame of the muon, shit for brains?

You’ve no idea, have you, faggot?

 

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[kenseto]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:33:32 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:56:45 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 10/6/2012 9:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Paul Andersen said:
>
> >>
>
> >>> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
>
> >>
>
> >>> toward it.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
>
> >>
>
> >>> would mean that the earth must move in different directions
>
> >>
>
> >>> simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
>
> >>
>
> >>> would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Good lord what a bonehead.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In order to make it clearer for you, let me restate what Paul Anderson
>
> >>
>
> >> was trying to say in sharper, cleaner terms so that you cannot possibly
>
> >>
>
> >> misunderstand it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "From a reference frame in which a particular cosmic muon is at rest,
>
> >>
>
> >> the earth is moving at a speed close to c toward it."
>
> >
>
> > Hey idiot....at rest wrt what?
>
>
>
> At rest with respect to the reference frame. Do you know what this
>
> means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
>
> to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
>
> this car is at rest?

No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object. The car,
the trees and the stop signs are all in a state of motion in space
Similtarly there is frame at which the cosmic muon is at rest.
By definition the cosmic muon was born at high speed.

>
>
>
> (If you cannot visualize the reference frame in which this car is at
>
> rest, then you have never understood what a reference frame
>
>
>

[rotchm]

> > means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
> > to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
> > this car is at rest?
>
> No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object.

LOL

Idiot ken, ask your wife and daughter to run towards you, one from the left and one from the right. You will then explode!

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message
news:4d84aa12-07c9-46bb...@googlegroups.com

OMG:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoRestFrame.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Facepalm.html

Dirk Vdm

[rotchm]

> "kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message

> > No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object.

...

> > Similtarly there is frame at which the cosmic muon is at rest.

This is bad...

Im sure he meant "SIMILARLY there is NO frame at which..."

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:33:32 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:

>>
>> At rest with respect to the reference frame. Do you know what this
>> means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
>> to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
>> this car is at rest?
>
> No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object. The car,
> the trees and the stop signs are all in a state of motion in space
> Similtarly there is frame at which the cosmic muon is at rest.
> By definition the cosmic muon was born at high speed.

OK, so you don't know what a reference frame is. You cannot visualize
the reference frame in which the car is at rest, and you cannot
visualize the reference frame in which the cosmic muon is at rest. And
since you don't know what a rest frame is (a reference frame in which a
car is at rest or a muon is at rest), you declare that they don't exist.

I've known for quite a while that you've never understood what a
reference frame is, but you've never been able to admit it. Instead, you
just say that whatever you don't understand, doesn't exist.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e199233d-297a-4bc5...@googlegroups.com...

Of course he meant that. That was just a typo.
I was tempted to correct it, but I decided not to.

Dirk Vdm

[rotchm]

> Of course he meant that. That was just a typo.
> I was tempted to correct it, but I decided not to.

We must now correct his own ramblings so that we may understand his nonsense. How far are we willing to go...? It is amusing though; I do often literally ROTFL.

[Big Dog]

I'll just add for spice, Seto, that it is remarkable that someone who
has never understood what "reference frame" means would go to all the
trouble to write a book criticizing relativity.

It's astounding, in fact, for someone to spend so long discussing a
subject when you don't even know what the words (like "reference frame")
mean.

Now, if you will look in your copy of Halliday and Resnick, I believe
Chapter 2, there will be a discussion of reference frames, and it will
talk about the reference frame in which a car is at rest, the reference
frame in which a boat is at rest, etc. If you had stopped there and
asked questions like, "I don't understand how something can be at rest
in a reference frame if it is obviously moving with respect to the
ground," BEFORE trying to launch into relativity, you would have spared
yourself twenty years of useless floundering.

[rotchm]

> OK, so you don't know what a reference frame is. You cannot visualize

...

Due to his senility, pretty soon, his typings will resemble "niuHJVhbtyxdERTjkbOHJ..." and will therefore have a greater chance of making sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[Poutnik]

rotchm from rot...@gmail.com posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 09:26:38 -0700 (PDT)

One wise man once said ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Werich )

"We cannot win the war against stupidity.
But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
otherwise it would flood the world."

--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster, if combined
with no quoting by some GG users.

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 11:40 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>
> rotchm from rot...@gmail.com posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 09:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>>
>>> Of course he meant that. That was just a typo. I was tempted to
>>> correct it, but I decided not to.
>>
>> We must now correct his own ramblings so that we may understand his
>> nonsense. How far are we willing to go...? It is amusing though; I do
>> often literally ROTFL.
>
> One wise man once said ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Werich )
>
> "We cannot win the war against stupidity.
> But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
> otherwise it would flood the world."
>

Ignorance is correctable. Stupidity is not.
Insanity is treatable, but only if the subject desires it. Stupidity is not.

Seto has wrestled with relativity for over twenty years ago. It has
never occurred to him that the reason he does not understand relativity
is that he does not know what the words mean. A less stupid person would
have said, "Hey, I'm not sure what these terms 'absolute time' or
'reference frame' or 'proper length' or 'length contraction' or
'coordinates' mean. Maybe I should ask what they mean first before I
judge." Unfortunately, he wrote a book almost 20 years ago that cemented
in his commitment to not even try. He walked down the one-way street of
RelativityIsWrong before even having a serious look the other direction.
This was the point that insanity set in. Senility is more recent.
Stupidity first, insanity next, senility last.

Same applies to many others who have visited this little patch of grass.

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 11:28 AM, Big Dog wrote:

>
> Now, if you will look in your copy of Halliday and Resnick, I believe
> Chapter 2, there will be a discussion of reference frames, and it will
> talk about the reference frame in which a car is at rest, the reference
> frame in which a boat is at rest, etc. If you had stopped there and
> asked questions like, "I don't understand how something can be at rest
> in a reference frame if it is obviously moving with respect to the
> ground," BEFORE trying to launch into relativity, you would have spared
> yourself twenty years of useless floundering.
>

At the risk of giving you too much to absorb, Seto, I'll go on.
You of course have the habit of saying things like "Well, if Halliday
and Resnick have discussions of reference frames in which a car is at
rest, then that is because it is an incorrect definition of reference
frames." And then you will declare your right to define reference frames
as being spatial zones with boundaries that are tied to material
objects, so that no reference frame is at rest, and no object in the
reference frame is at rest because the objects are in motion, and the
reference frames of all these objects approach each other or recede from
each other. And you will say this is what it means to the public,
because that's what YOU think it means, and so this should be the right
definition, and that scientists have no right to change the definition
of reference frame.

Never mind that you never actually learned what "reference frame" ever
meant in the first place.

Stupidity followed by insanity followed by senility followed by death
followed by obscurity.

Seto, you have made more wrong choices than a three-time-loser junkie
and penny-ante burglar serving a life sentence in a state penitentiary.

[Pete Weber]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 07:45:53 -0700, kenseto wrote:

> Paul Andersen said:
> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
> toward it.

this is nothing, the entire naked eye seen control volume
universe would be moving close to c wrt that single muon!!!

this in turn is forbidden according to relativity, by
the reason not enuff energy in that close range universe,
nevertheless this happens as you speak

[Pete Weber]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:28:34 -0500, Big Dog wrote:
...

> I'll just add for spice, Seto, that it is remarkable that someone who
> has never understood what "reference frame" means would go to all the
> trouble to write a book criticizing relativity.

you just jealous he makes big money on his controversial
relativity, and you can not make any on your traditional
secularly standard mainstream view!

[Pete Weber]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:57:41 -0500, Big Dog wrote:

> On 10/6/2012 11:40 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> rotchm from rot...@gmail.com posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 09:26:38 -0700
>> (PDT)
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Of course he meant that. That was just a typo. I was tempted to
>>>> correct it, but I decided not to.
>>>
>>> We must now correct his own ramblings so that we may understand his
>>> nonsense. How far are we willing to go...? It is amusing though; I do
>>> often literally ROTFL.
>>
>> One wise man once said ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Werich )
>>
>> "We cannot win the war against stupidity.
>> But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
>> otherwise it would flood the world."
>>
>>
> Ignorance is correctable. Stupidity is not.
> Insanity is treatable, but only if the subject desires it. Stupidity is
> not.

you cant tell that, unless you have been in his shoes

[Big Dog]

Ask him how much money he has made from his book.
Then ask him how much money he spent to self-publish it.
Then ask him how many copies of the book he has sitting in a closet at home.

[Big Dog]

Ignorance and insanity can be assessed from the outside, without being
in his shoes.
As far as stupidity goes, you know what Forrest Gump's mother said.

[rotchm]

> Ask him how much money he has made from his book.

He will answer something like, +48$.

> Then ask him how much money he spent to self-publish it.

He will answer something like +450$


Then he will conclude that the money he made is 48 - 450 = -402 $; but since negative numbers dont exist, he has lost no money therefore he must have made money.

[Pete Weber]

however, he might be doing it for posterity, not for money

you cant say that with your standard relativity!

[Pete Weber]

god point, money has no intrinsic value as property, seto wins again

[Big Dog]

Of course. But then I've got no reason for jealousy over all the big
money he (hasn't) made on his controversial relativity.

>
> you cant say that with your standard relativity!
>

Sure I can. I've worked on relativity without any return in money
whatsoever. That work is wholly for posterity.

[Big Dog]

So let's see, he has lost money but nothing of value. Therefore he has
won something.
Hmmmmm......
So, if I just walk around with my pockets full of sand, and the sand
runs out through a hole in my pocket, then because I haven't lost
anything of value, then I've won something?

[Pete Weber]

you might then be in the possession of the standard etalon
meter for insanity, otherwise you cant tell which one is which

> As far as stupidity goes, you know what Forrest Gump's mother said.

not quite familiar with this move

[Pete Weber]

yes, a lost in weight is a win in many cultures

[rotchm]

> god point, money has no intrinsic value as property, seto wins again

Seto makes us laugh and is beneficial to our health. You, on the other hand, are boring and inconsequential. So, yes, seto wins over you by a long shot.

[Pete Weber]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:53:32 -0700, rotchm wrote:

>> god point, money has no intrinsic value as property, seto wins again
>
> Seto makes us laugh and is beneficial to our health.

you win here, stupidity is beneficial for your health

> You, on the other
> hand, are boring and inconsequential. So, yes, seto wins over you by a
> long shot.

you win again, you must be stoopid not telling what part is
"inconsequential"

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 11:28 AM, Big Dog wrote:

>
> Now, if you will look in your copy of Halliday and Resnick, I believe
> Chapter 2, there will be a discussion of reference frames, and it will
> talk about the reference frame in which a car is at rest, the reference
> frame in which a boat is at rest, etc. If you had stopped there and
> asked questions like, "I don't understand how something can be at rest
> in a reference frame if it is obviously moving with respect to the
> ground," BEFORE trying to launch into relativity, you would have spared
> yourself twenty years of useless floundering.
>

Seto, because you never learned what a reference frame is, and since you
cannot read, I offer you an old half-hour film. Notice that you can
pause it when your mind wanders, and you can rewind and rewatch parts
you did not hear correctly or need to see again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBNImQkRuk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=053nYXFfjZE

[rotchm]

> you win here, stupidity is beneficial for your health

Yup, I do know how to profit greatly from stupid people. They pay my house, vehicles, trips and usw...

> you win again,

Of course...nothing new there!

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 12:53 PM, Pete Weber wrote:

>> So let's see, he has lost money but nothing of value. Therefore he has
>> won something.
>> Hmmmmm......
>> So, if I just walk around with my pockets full of sand, and the sand
>> runs out through a hole in my pocket, then because I haven't lost
>> anything of value, then I've won something?
>
> yes, a lost in weight is a win in many cultures
>

Then Seto has won in those cultures by relieving weight in his wallet
and fat from his bank account. He should keep at it, until he has
nothing left in his wallet or his bank account.

[Pete Weber]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:04:57 -0700, rotchm wrote:

>> you win here, stupidity is beneficial for your health
>
> Yup, I do know how to profit greatly from stupid people. They pay my
> house, vehicles, trips and usw...

you win repeatedly, you tell you are a parasite as well

>
>> you win again,
>
> Of course...nothing new there!

your snipage, but it us okay

[Pete Weber]

parroting cant be work, you must be controversial

[Pete Weber]

this is kinda evilness, why dont you better take the step
and write a controversial relativity like seto, then tell
about your bank account

better stay mainstream huh, your ass feels more safe

[Poutnik]

Pete Weber from p4g...@gmail.com
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:21:20 +0000 (UTC)

> >> however, he might be doing it for posterity, not for money
> >
> > Of course. But then I've got no reason for jealousy over all the big
> > money he (hasn't) made on his controversial relativity.
> >
> >
> >> you cant say that with your standard relativity!
> >>
> >>
> > Sure I can. I've worked on relativity without any return in money
> > whatsoever. That work is wholly for posterity.
>
> parroting cant be work, you must be controversial

Sometimes it is even hard work,
as parroting of principles of Newtonian and Galileo physics
to somebody who is resisting understanding.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:01:39 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > > means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
>
> > > to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
>
> > > this car is at rest?
>
> >
>
> > No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object.
>
>
>
> LOL
>
>
>
> Idiot ken, ask your wife and daughter to run towards you, one from the left and one from the right. You will then explode!

You are stupid....I didn't claim the earth will explode. I said that
what Paul Andersen (SR) assert will cause the earth to explaode. In
my theory no IRT observer claims that he is at rest. Therefore he has
two sets of equations to predict the rate of a clock moving wrt him.

[Pete Weber]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:37:03 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> Pete Weber from p4g...@gmail.com posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:21:20 +0000
> (UTC)
>
>
>> >> however, he might be doing it for posterity, not for money
>> >
>> > Of course. But then I've got no reason for jealousy over all the big
>> > money he (hasn't) made on his controversial relativity.
>> >
>> >
>> >> you cant say that with your standard relativity!
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Sure I can. I've worked on relativity without any return in money
>> > whatsoever. That work is wholly for posterity.
>>
>> parroting cant be work, you must be controversial
>
> Sometimes it is even hard work,
> as parroting of principles of Newtonian and Galileo physics to somebody
> who is resisting understanding.

hard work parroting tells rather something about your
parroting abilities

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 06.10.2012 16:56, Big Dog wrote:

> On 10/6/2012 9:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> Paul Andersen said:
>> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
>> toward it.

>> Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
>> would mean that the earth must move in different directions
>> simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
>> would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
>
> Good lord what a bonehead.
>
> In order to make it clearer for you, let me restate what Paul Anderson
> was trying to say in sharper, cleaner terms so that you cannot possibly
> misunderstand it.

For your information:

This is an old story, from 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/8b6j69a
As you can see, my statement was:
| The muon's proper lifetime never change.
| But in the muon's stationary frame the distance from the
| top of the atmosphere to the ground is so short that the fast
| moving ground has ample time to come up and hit the muon
| during its very short lifetime.

Ken found this hilarious and has presented his
"exploding Earth theory" many times since then.

And no, your rewording of Ken's (mis)quotation,
won't make him understand. :-)

Ken doesn't understand much.

>
> "From a reference frame in which a particular cosmic muon is at rest,
> the earth is moving at a speed close to c toward it."
>
> Note that there is no frame in which all the cosmic ray muons
> approaching the earth are at rest, though there is ALWAYS at least one
> frame in which at least one of the muons is at rest.
>
> Paul Anderson thought that you would be able to see that his statement
> and mine are identical, but you have a demonstrated inability to see
> things like that, and you blame others when you cannot see it.
>
>> The other explanation is that Andersen's understanding of
>> relativity is kind of faulty....or the SR interpretation of
>> the muon's point of view is a bunch of Bull.
>>
>
> Translation: "The other explanation for why I, Seto, cannot understand
> what people like Anderson are saying is that it's their fault, not mine,
> and what they are describing is bull."
>


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[kenseto]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:19:34 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:33:32 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> At rest with respect to the reference frame. Do you know what this

>
> >> means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
>
> >> to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
>
> >> this car is at rest?
>
> >
>

> > No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object. The car,
>
> > the trees and the stop signs are all in a state of motion in space
>
> > Similtarly there is frame at which the cosmic muon is at rest.
>
> > By definition the cosmic muon was born at high speed.
>
>
>
> OK, so you don't know what a reference frame is. You cannot visualize
>
> the reference frame in which the car is at rest, and you cannot
>
> visualize the reference frame in which the cosmic muon is at rest. And
>
> since you don't know what a rest frame is (a reference frame in which a
>
> car is at rest or a muon is at rest), you declare that they don't exist.

Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.

SR claims a preferred rest frame and LET claims an absolute rest
aether frame. Both theories use these non-existence rest frames
to derive their math and that's why SR and LET have the same math.
The problem of using these non-existence rest frames is that
the resulting math is incomplete.....and that;s why SR and LET
are incomplete theories and have limited domain of applicabilities.

IRT does not use a rest frame to derive its math. That's why every IRT
observer has two sets of equations to predict the rate of a moving
clock and the light-path length of a moving meter stick. That's why
IRT is a complete theory of relativity. A paper on IRT is available
in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

>
>
>
> I've known for quite a while that you've never understood what a
>
> reference frame is, but you've never been able to admit it. Instead, you
>
> just say that whatever you don't understand, doesn't exist.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 06.10.2012 21:50, kenseto wrote:
> SR claims a preferred rest frame

Indeed?
Which frame is that?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[kenseto]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:55:23 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 06.10.2012 21:50, kenseto wrote:
>
> > SR claims a preferred rest frame
>
>
>
> Indeed?
>
> Which frame is that?

Every SRT observer claims to be in a preferred rest frame and
that's why he (SR observer) predicts that every clock moving wrt
him are running slow.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[kenseto]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:41:42 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 06.10.2012 16:56, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 10/6/2012 9:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >> Paul Andersen said:
>
> >> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
>
> >> toward it.
>
> >> Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
>
> >> would mean that the earth must move in different directions
>
> >> simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
>
> >> would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
>
> >
>
> > Good lord what a bonehead.
>
> >
>
> > In order to make it clearer for you, let me restate what Paul Anderson
>
> > was trying to say in sharper, cleaner terms so that you cannot possibly
>
> > misunderstand it.
>
>
>
> For your information:
>
>
>
> This is an old story, from 2000:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8b6j69a
>
> As you can see, my statement was:
>
> | The muon's proper lifetime never change.

I agree. But you failed to understand that 1 second of
muon's proper time is corresponded to gamma seconds of
of proper time on the earth clock.

>
> | But in the muon's stationary frame the distance from the
>
> | top of the atmosphere to the ground is so short that the fast
>
> | moving ground has ample time to come up and hit the muon
>
> | during its very short lifetime.

No the longer life time of the muon (2.2*gamma according to
the earth clock) enable it to reach the earth's surface.
There is no space contraction as you claimed.

>
> Ken found this hilarious and has presented his
>
> "exploding Earth theory" many times since then.

Your description reciprocity is what caused the "exploding
earth theory"

[xxein]

On Oct 6, 12:28 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/6/2012 11:19 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/6/2012 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:33:32 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >>> At rest with respect to the reference frame. Do you know what this
> >>> means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
> >>> to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
> >>> this car is at rest?
>
> >> No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object. The car,
> >> the trees and the stop signs are all in a state of motion in space
> >> Similtarly there is frame at which the cosmic muon is at rest.
> >> By definition the cosmic muon was born at high speed.
>
> > OK, so you don't know what a reference frame is. You cannot visualize
> > the reference frame in which the car is at rest, and you cannot
> > visualize the reference frame in which the cosmic muon is at rest. And
> > since you don't know what a rest frame is (a reference frame in which a
> > car is at rest or a muon is at rest), you declare that they don't exist.
>

> > I've known for quite a while that you've never understood what a
> > reference frame is, but you've never been able to admit it. Instead, you
> > just say that whatever you don't understand, doesn't exist.
>

> I'll just add for spice, Seto, that it is remarkable that someone who
> has never understood what "reference frame" means would go to all the
> trouble to write a book criticizing relativity.
>

> It's astounding, in fact, for someone to spend so long discussing a
> subject when you don't even know what the words (like "reference frame")
> mean.

>
> Now, if you will look in your copy of Halliday and Resnick, I believe
> Chapter 2, there will be a discussion of reference frames, and it will
> talk about the reference frame in which a car is at rest, the reference
> frame in which a boat is at rest, etc. If you had stopped there and
> asked questions like, "I don't understand how something can be at rest
> in a reference frame if it is obviously moving with respect to the
> ground," BEFORE trying to launch into relativity, you would have spared
> yourself twenty years of useless floundering.

xxein: Better yet, have him take a drive in the countryside. Have
him close his eyes, take his hands off the steering wheel and grab the
dashboard. Ask him if his dash is moving. Tell him that is his rest
frame in the car. Now hopefully he can imagine that a tree is moving
past and that it is at rest wrt ground in its own rest frame. With a
little bit of luck (with his eyes closed) his car will find a tree and
argue over who is at rest. Enjoy that discussion, Ken. We won't miss
you.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:50:31 -0700 (PDT)

> Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
> no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
> for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.
>

You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik from poutni...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 06:50:27 +0200

>
> kenseto from set...@att.net
> posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
> > no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
> > for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.
> >
>
> You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.

In reference frame of running car,
a sitting passenger
is in rest in every theory.

In Earth surface reference frame,
an object laying on the surface
is in rest in every theory.

Note that this relates to relative rest, not absolute rest.

SR does not claim there exists absolute rest.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:50:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> > Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
>
> > no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
>
> > for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.
>

>
> You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.

Relative rest???
A and B are in relative motion who is at relative rest?
According to SR:
A or B each claims that he is at relative rest.
That's why A predicts that B's clock is running
slow by a factor of 1/gamma_a and B predicts that
A's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma_b.

Unfortunately these SR predictions do not match observations
All clocks iin relative motion will accumulate clock seconds
at different rates. What this mean is that only one of these
SR predictions is correct. In other words, SR is an incomplete
theory of relativity.
That's why I inventred a new theory of relativity called IRT.
IRT provides two sets of equations for each observer. The IRT
predictions for A and B are as follows:
Observer A's predictions:
Delta(t_B)=gamma_A*Delta(t_A)
OR
Delta(t_B)=Delta(t_A)/gamma_A
Only one of these predictions is correct.

Observer B's predictions:
Delta(t_A)=gamma_B*Delta(t_B)
OR
Delta(t_A)=Delta(t_B)/gamma_B
Only one of these predictins is correct.

So you can see that IRT is a complete theory of relativity.
IRT includes SRT as a subset.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)

> > > Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
> > > no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
> > > for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.
> >
> > You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.
>
> Relative rest???
> A and B are in relative motion who is at relative rest?
>

every object is in state of relative rest
in such a reference frame, where its space coordinates are constant.

If such a frame is e.g. binded to Earth surface,
every objects laying on the E. surface is in relative rest.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)


> >

> > You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.
>
> Relative rest???
> A and B are in relative motion who is at relative rest?
> According to SR:
> A or B each claims that he is at relative rest.
> That's why A predicts that B's clock is running
> slow by a factor of 1/gamma_a and B predicts that
> A's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma_b.
>
> Unfortunately these SR predictions do not match observations

They just do not match your imagination of observations.

......

> So you can see that IRT is a complete theory of relativity.
> IRT includes SRT as a subset.

You IRT has aside of other issues
at least 2 big obvious flaws.

One is ignoring of symmetry.
One is 3+ objects problem.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik from poutni...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:50:20 +0200

>
> kenseto from set...@att.net
> posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > > > Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
> > > > no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
> > > > for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.
> > >
> > > You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.
> >
> > Relative rest???
> > A and B are in relative motion who is at relative rest?
> >
> every object is in state of relative rest
> in such a reference frame, where its space coordinates are constant.
>
> If such a frame is e.g. binded to Earth surface,
> every objects laying on the E. surface is in relative rest.

Such frame can be as well binded to object A,
so object B is in relative rest or motion wrt O. A,
if its coordinates are or are not constant
in such a reference frame.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:26:58 -0700 (PDT)

>
> Hey idiot....at rest wrt what? There is no cosmic muon is
> at rest. Every object in the universe is in a state of individual
> motion in space.
,,,,
> Since there is no cosmic muon is at rest....your statement is bogus.

There is no absolute reference frame,
where you could evaluate absolute motion of objects.

There are only relative reference frames,
where you could evaluate relative motion of objects.

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 2:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:19:34 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:33:32 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> At rest with respect to the reference frame. Do you know what this
>>
>>>> means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
>>
>>>> to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
>>
>>>> this car is at rest?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object. The car,
>>
>>> the trees and the stop signs are all in a state of motion in space
>>
>>> Similtarly there is frame at which the cosmic muon is at rest.
>>
>>> By definition the cosmic muon was born at high speed.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, so you don't know what a reference frame is. You cannot visualize
>>
>> the reference frame in which the car is at rest, and you cannot
>>
>> visualize the reference frame in which the cosmic muon is at rest. And
>>
>> since you don't know what a rest frame is (a reference frame in which a
>>
>> car is at rest or a muon is at rest), you declare that they don't exist.
>
> Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
> no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
> for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.

That is your delusion. You insist that what YOU think must be true, must
be therefore in all theories. But that is counter to black and white
documentation. But you don't care. You believe what you believe and no
one will ever get you to change your mind, because you are insane.

You do not know what a reference frame means. This is obvious when you
say no rest frame for any object can exist, even when your FRESHMAN
physics book says otherwise. You deny it further when you say your
freshman book, which you have in your own two hands, cannot possibly
talk about the rest frame of an object, because according to you your
ideas are true for ALL theories.

You therefore say that what is printed in a book you have cannot
possibly be printed there. Such is the nature of your insanity, Seto.

You're gone. Good-bye.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Every object in the universe is in a state of motion and thus
>
> > > > no object is in a state of rest and thus there is no rest frame
>
> > > > for any object. This statement applies to ALL theories.
>
> > >
>
> > > You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.
>
> >
>
> > Relative rest???
>
> > A and B are in relative motion who is at relative rest?
>
> >
>
> every object is in state of relative rest
>
> in such a reference frame, where its space coordinates are constant.

How can the space coordinates for any object are constant
when you know every object in th euniverse is moving in space??

>
>
>
> If such a frame is e.g. binded to Earth surface,
>
> every objects laying on the E. surface is in relative rest.

You are talking in circles...the observer constructs this frame
by declaring that he is in a state of rest while he knows that
he is in a state of motion in space....the earth is rotating
and the earth is orbiting the sun.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:56:01 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.
>
> >
>
> > Relative rest???
>
> > A and B are in relative motion who is at relative rest?
>
> > According to SR:
>
> > A or B each claims that he is at relative rest.
>
> > That's why A predicts that B's clock is running
>
> > slow by a factor of 1/gamma_a and B predicts that
>
> > A's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma_b.
>
> >
>
> > Unfortunately these SR predictions do not match observations
>
>
>
> They just do not match your imagination of observations.
>
>
>
> ......
>
>
>
> > So you can see that IRT is a complete theory of relativity.
>
> > IRT includes SRT as a subset.
>
>
>
> You IRT has aside of other issues
>
> at least 2 big obvious flaws.
>
>
>
> One is ignoring of symmetry.

That's the point.....there is no symmetry. Clocks in relatice motion
accumulate clock seconds in different rates....the GPS confirms this
conclusion.

>
> One is 3+ objects problem.

No problem there.

[Alen]

On Oct 7, 1:45 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> Paul Andersen said:
> From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
> toward it.
> Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
> would mean that the earth must move in different directions
> simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
> would cause it to explode long time ago. Thank God it didn't.

> The other explanation is that Andersen's understanding of
> relativity is kind of faulty....or the SR interpretation of
> the muon's point of view is a bunch of Bull.
>

> A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT rejects
> the notion of reciprocity. Each muon observer will say that
> he is moving toward the earth at high speed and thus avoid the
> bogus concept of reciprocity. A paper on IRT is available in

> the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

> Also  new theory of gravlity called DTG is included in this paper.

I always think there is something peculiar about the
assertion that the distance from the muon to the
earth's surface is length contracted. If, for example,
you have a moving rod then, according to SR, it will
be length contracted in a 'stationary' frame. But SR
does not say that the distance from the stationary
frame observer to the near end of the moving rod is
length contracted. Why not? Because length
contraction applies where two locations within
the moving frame are measured in the stationary frame,
and not for the measurement between one location
in the stationary frame and one in the moving frame.
To get around this by trying to use the distance
between the current atmospheric location of the
muon, in the earth frame, and the earth surface
doesn't really work because it contradicts this
principle. So I think the orthodox have some
explaining to do about their explanation :)

Alen

[kenseto]

No it is you who is deusional....no object in the universe
is in a state of rest.

>
>
>
> You do not know what a reference frame means. This is obvious when you
>
> say no rest frame for any object can exist,

Every SR observer declares that he is in a state of rest
while he knows that he is in a state of motion....the
rotational motion of the earth and the orbitiing motion
of the earth around the sun.

The only reference frame in which SR observer can be
at rest is the aether frame....SR calls the aether frame
as an inertial frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math.

The problem of using the aether frame or inertial frame to derive
the math is that the resulting math is incomplete. That's why I
invented the IRT. An IRT observer does not consider himself is
at rest in any frame of reference and thus every IRT observer
has two sets of equations to predict the rate of a clock moving
wrt him as follows:
Delta(t_B)=gamma_A(Delta(t_A))
OR
Delta(t_B)=Delta(t_A)/gamma_A

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> How can the space coordinates for any object are constant
> when you know every object in th euniverse is moving in space??

Seto cannot read his freshman physics textbook which shows in Chapter 2
examples of coordinates of objects being constant.

To him, it's simply inconceivable and so it cannot exist, even if it
says so in his freshman physics textbook, Chapter 2.

And even though he cannot get past Chapter 1 in his freshman physics
textbook, he wants to talk about relativity.

Seto is insane.

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 9:23 AM, Alen wrote:

>
> I always think there is something peculiar about the
> assertion that the distance from the muon to the
> earth's surface is length contracted. If, for example,
> you have a moving rod then, according to SR, it will
> be length contracted in a 'stationary' frame. But SR
> does not say that the distance from the stationary
> frame observer to the near end of the moving rod is
> length contracted.

But it is, in the frame in which the rod is at rest and that observer is
moving. That distance is indeed contracted.

I'm sorry you never saw that or knew that. Maybe it has something to do
with the materials you read.

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 8:59:29 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:

>> That is your delusion. You insist that what YOU think must be true, must
>> be therefore in all theories. But that is counter to black and white
>> documentation. But you don't care. You believe what you believe and no
>> one will ever get you to change your mind, because you are insane.
>
> No it is you who is deusional....no object in the universe
> is in a state of rest.

As I said, you have no idea what a reference frame means, and you have
no idea what your FRESHMAN physics textbook means in chapter 2 when it
considers objects that are at rest in a certain reference frame. To you,
even the stuff in chapter 2 in a FRESHMAN physics text is completely
incomprehensible.

And yet you want to talk about relativity.

You are insane.

You know it, even if you can't admit it to a living soul.

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:54:17 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 8, 2012 8:59:29 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
> >> That is your delusion. You insist that what YOU think must be true, must
>
> >> be therefore in all theories. But that is counter to black and white
>
> >> documentation. But you don't care. You believe what you believe and no
>
> >> one will ever get you to change your mind, because you are insane.
>
> >
>
> > No it is you who is deusional....no object in the universe
>
> > is in a state of rest.
>
>
>
> As I said, you have no idea what a reference frame means, and you have
>
> no idea what your FRESHMAN physics textbook means in chapter 2 when it
>
> considers objects that are at rest in a certain reference frame. To you,
>
> even the stuff in chapter 2 in a FRESHMAN physics text is completely
>
> incomprehensible.

So what is your point? I already told you that the text book
decription of a reference frame is identical to the rest frame
of the aether frame and that's why SR and LET have identical math.
Gee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote:

>> As I said, you have no idea what a reference frame means, and you have
>> no idea what your FRESHMAN physics textbook means in chapter 2 when it
>> considers objects that are at rest in a certain reference frame. To you,
>> even the stuff in chapter 2 in a FRESHMAN physics text is completely
>> incomprehensible.
>
> So what is your point? I already told you that the text book
> decription of a reference frame is identical to the rest frame
> of the aether frame and that's why SR and LET have identical math.
> Gee you are stupid.

No, that is what the textbook description is.

My point is, you have no idea what a reference frame is or what the term
means, and that you are stuck in Chapter 2 of a FRESHMAN physics
textbook says and do not understand it, and yet you want to talk about
relativity.

My point is, you are insane.

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 11:14 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>> As I said, you have no idea what a reference frame means, and you have
>>> no idea what your FRESHMAN physics textbook means in chapter 2 when it
>>> considers objects that are at rest in a certain reference frame. To you,
>>> even the stuff in chapter 2 in a FRESHMAN physics text is completely
>>> incomprehensible.
>>
>> So what is your point? I already told you that the text book
>> decription of a reference frame is identical to the rest frame
>> of the aether frame and that's why SR and LET have identical math.
>> Gee you are stupid.
>
> No, that is what the textbook description is.

Sorry, typo.
No, that is NOT what the textbook description is.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:52:35 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> > in such a reference frame, where its space coordinates are constant.
>
> How can the space coordinates for any object are constant
> when you know every object in th euniverse is moving in space??

There is no absolute motion,
no absolute rest
and no absolute space coordinates.

Only relative ones.

> >
> >
> >
> > If such a frame is e.g. binded to Earth surface,
> >
> > every objects laying on the E. surface is in relative rest.
>
> You are talking in circles...the observer constructs this frame
> by declaring that he is in a state of rest

..only with respect to chosen frame.....

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:56:01 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> > kenseto from set...@att.net
> >
> > posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > You confuse absolute and relative rest and motion.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Relative rest???
> >
> > > A and B are in relative motion who is at relative rest?
> >
> > > According to SR:
> >
> > > A or B each claims that he is at relative rest.
> >
> > > That's why A predicts that B's clock is running
> >
> > > slow by a factor of 1/gamma_a and B predicts that
> >
> > > A's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma_b.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Unfortunately these SR predictions do not match observations
> >
> >
> >
> > They just do not match your imagination of observations.
> >
> >
> >
> > ......
> >
> >
> >
> > > So you can see that IRT is a complete theory of relativity.
> >
> > > IRT includes SRT as a subset.
> >
> >
> >
> > You IRT has aside of other issues
> >
> > at least 2 big obvious flaws.
> >
> >
> >
> > One is ignoring of symmetry.
>
> That's the point.....there is no symmetry.

2 mutually moving clocks creates perfect symmetry.
from which IRT creates perfect asymmetry.

> Clocks in relatice motion accumulate clock seconds in different
> rates....the GPS confirms this conclusion.

This just confirms your confusion, as GPS system
is not in state of symmetry.

>
> >
> > One is 3+ objects problem.
>
> No problem there.

OK, so lets take 3 clocks, mutually moving
with relative speed v each wrt both others......

Another kind of perfect symmetry,
from which IRT creates perfect asymmetry.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 06.10.2012 23:15, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:55:23 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 06.10.2012 21:50, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> SR claims a preferred rest frame
>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed?
>>
>> Which frame is that?
>
> Every SRT observer claims to be in a preferred rest frame and
> that's why he (SR observer) predicts that every clock moving wrt
> him are running slow.

I see.
So the preferred rest frame of SR is any inertial frame. :-)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:14:26 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >> As I said, you have no idea what a reference frame means, and you have
>
> >> no idea what your FRESHMAN physics textbook means in chapter 2 when it
>
> >> considers objects that are at rest in a certain reference frame. To you,
>
> >> even the stuff in chapter 2 in a FRESHMAN physics text is completely
>
> >> incomprehensible.
>
> >
>
> > So what is your point? I already told you that the text book
>
> > decription of a reference frame is identical to the rest frame
>
> > of the aether frame and that's why SR and LET have identical math.
>
> > Gee you are stupid.
>
>
>
> No, that is what the textbook description is.

Yes it is....an inertial reference frame has all the properties of
the rest frame of the aether.

[kenseto]

Yes every inertial frame observer (every SR observer) claims the
exclusive properties of the aether frame and that's the reason
why the predictions of SR and LET are incomplete.
>
>

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > in such a reference frame, where its space coordinates are constant.
>
> >
>
> > How can the space coordinates for any object are constant
>
> > when you know every object in th euniverse is moving in space??
>
>
>
> There is no absolute motion,
>
> no absolute rest
>
> and no absolute space coordinates.
>
>
>
> Only relative ones.

Assertion is not a valid arguement.

> > You are talking in circles...the observer constructs this frame
>
> > by declaring that he is in a state of rest
>
>
>
> ..only with respect to chosen frame.....

The choosen inertial frame is the aether frame.

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:37:20 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > On Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:56:01 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > > kenseto from set...@att.net

>
> > >
>

> > > One is ignoring of symmetry.
>
> >
>
> > That's the point.....there is no symmetry.
>
>
>
> 2 mutually moving clocks creates perfect symmetry.

All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
different rates....thus there is no symmetry. The GPS
confirms this....they had to redefine the GPS second to
have 4.46 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS
in synch with the ground clock

>
> from which IRT creates perfect asymmetry.

That's how nature works.

>
>
>
> > Clocks in relatice motion accumulate clock seconds in different
>
> > rates....the GPS confirms this conclusion.
>
>
>
> This just confirms your confusion, as GPS system
>
> is not in state of symmetry.

So you support my conclusion that there is no symmetry between
two relative clocks.....Right?

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:00:12 -0700 (PDT)

> Yes it is....an inertial reference frame has all the properties of
> the rest frame of the aether.
>

Really ?

If there are 2 mutually moving inertial refererence frame,
which of them has ALL properties of rest frame of the aether ?

Or, do you say you are always in the rest wrt aether ?
Total aether drag was rejected experimentally.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:25:49 -0700 (PDT)

> > There is no absolute motion,
> > no absolute rest
> > and no absolute space coordinates.
> >
> > Only relative ones.
>
> Assertion is not a valid arguement.

You has many of years to learn it yourself.

>
>
> > > You are talking in circles...the observer constructs this frame
> >
> > > by declaring that he is in a state of rest
> >
> >
> >
> > ..only with respect to chosen frame.....
>
> The choosen inertial frame is the aether frame.

Aether as objective phenomena
cannot be dependent on our choice.

Neither absolute frame, rest and motion.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:33:24 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> > 2 mutually moving clocks creates perfect symmetry.
>
> All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates....
> thus there is no symmetry.

Kenseto told us assertion is not valid argument.
where do you see in symmetry setting the source of asymmetry ?


> The GPS confirms this....

> they had to redefine the GPS second to
> have 4.46 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS
> in synch with the ground clock

I am sorry, evaluation implicitly expects
your ability to distinguish what is symmetrical and what is not.

GPS is not. 2 mutually inertially moving clocks are.

>
> So you support my conclusion that there is no symmetry between
> two relative clocks.....Right?

Not at all, I just wait for your finished education about symmetry.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
posted Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:11:46 +0200

>
> kenseto from set...@att.net
> posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > >
> > > 2 mutually moving clocks creates perfect symmetry.
> >
> > All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
> > different rates....
> > thus there is no symmetry.
>
> Kenseto told us assertion is not valid argument.
> where do you see in symmetry setting the source of asymmetry ?
>
>

And you have avoided to answer the symmetrical 3 clock setting,
each mutually relatively move at speed v, lets say giving gamma = 2.

Either you broke the symmetry according to IRT, leading to paradox,
Either you have abandon assymetry of the IRT.

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 6:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:14:26 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> As I said, you have no idea what a reference frame means, and you have
>>
>>>> no idea what your FRESHMAN physics textbook means in chapter 2 when it
>>
>>>> considers objects that are at rest in a certain reference frame. To you,
>>
>>>> even the stuff in chapter 2 in a FRESHMAN physics text is completely
>>
>>>> incomprehensible.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So what is your point? I already told you that the text book
>>
>>> decription of a reference frame is identical to the rest frame
>>
>>> of the aether frame and that's why SR and LET have identical math.
>>
>>> Gee you are stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that is what the textbook description is.
>
> Yes it is....an inertial reference frame has all the properties of
> the rest frame of the aether.

You cannot read.
I said you do not know what REFERENCE FRAME means.
You have to understand what REFERENCE FRAME means before you have a clue
what REST FRAME or INERTIAL FRAME means.
You are insane and you cannot read.

[kenseto]

No you don't see. There is no inertial frame exists in our universe.
The SR inertial frame is the aether frame....but no SR observer
is at rest in the aether frame. Therefore when you use the
aether (inertial)to derive the math is incomplete.
frame to derive the math that math is incomplete.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:26:57 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
>
> posted Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:11:46 +0200
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> > posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > 2 mutually moving clocks creates perfect symmetry.
>
> > >
>
> > > All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
>
> > > different rates....
>
> > > thus there is no symmetry.
>
> >
>
> > Kenseto told us assertion is not valid argument.
>
> > where do you see in symmetry setting the source of asymmetry ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> And you have avoided to answer the symmetrical 3 clock setting,
>
> each mutually relatively move at speed v, lets say giving gamma = 2.

Sigh....each observer will determine a different gamma for any
clock moving wrt him. Your assertion that they measure the
same v is wrong.
>

[Poutnik]

Dne úterý, 9. října 2012 14:40:46 UTC+2 kenseto napsal(a):

>
> Sigh....each observer will determine a different gamma for any
>
> clock moving wrt him. Your assertion that they measure the
>
> same v is wrong.
>

So, you say *by other words*,
that if the car A is moving 100 km/h wrt the car B,
the car B is moving wrt to the car A
by speed different to 100 km/h.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:27:54 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 6:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:14:26 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 10/8/2012 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> As I said, you have no idea what a reference frame means, and you have
>
> >>
>
> >>>> no idea what your FRESHMAN physics textbook means in chapter 2 when it
>
> >>
>
> >>>> considers objects that are at rest in a certain reference frame. To you,
>
> >>
>
> >>>> even the stuff in chapter 2 in a FRESHMAN physics text is completely
>
> >>
>
> >>>> incomprehensible.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> So what is your point? I already told you that the text book
>
> >>
>
> >>> decription of a reference frame is identical to the rest frame
>
> >>
>
> >>> of the aether frame and that's why SR and LET have identical math.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Gee you are stupid.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No, that is what the textbook description is.
>
> >
>
> > Yes it is....an inertial reference frame has all the properties of
>
> > the rest frame of the aether.
>
>
>
> You cannot read.
>
> I said you do not know what REFERENCE FRAME means.
>
> You have to understand what REFERENCE FRAME means before you have a clue
>
> what REST FRAME or INERTIAL FRAME means.
>
> You are insane and you cannot read.

No it is you who don't know what a reference frame means.
In any case it is irrelevant. The SR observer claims
that he is at rest in an non-existence inertial frame
to calculate the rate of a moving clock and such calculation
is incomplete....an observed clock can run at a faster rate
than the observer's clock.
>

[Alen]

> > Alen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What you are saying is not clear to me.

If the rear end of a moving rod passes you in your
'stationary' frame, at your time t = 0, then the distance
from you to that end of the moving rod is always
given as vt, and not (1/g)vt (g for gamma), whereas
the length of the moving rod in your frame is (1/g)L,
where L is the proper length of the rod. If the relative
velocity, v, is increased, the distance vt is increased
for the same time t, but the length of the rod in your
frame is decreased. So there is a 'qualitative' difference
between the vt distance and the length of the rod.

In the muon's case, the muon corresponds to you,
and the diameter of the earth corresponds to the
moving rod. On this model, the diameter of the earth
is contracted in the muon's frame but the distance
to the earth is a vt distance and is therefore not length
contracted in the same way in the muon's frame??

Alen

[Big Dog]

On 10/9/2012 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote:

>> You cannot read.
>> I said you do not know what REFERENCE FRAME means.
>> You have to understand what REFERENCE FRAME means before you have a clue
>> what REST FRAME or INERTIAL FRAME means.
>> You are insane and you cannot read.
>
> No it is you who don't know what a reference frame means.

It's not between you and me. Look at Chapter 2 of your FRESHMAN physics
text to find out what "reference frame" means.
You don't know what it means, and you'll discover that by reading.

> In any case it is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant that you don't know what the words mean.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:43:19 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >> You cannot read.
>
> >> I said you do not know what REFERENCE FRAME means.
>
> >> You have to understand what REFERENCE FRAME means before you have a clue
>
> >> what REST FRAME or INERTIAL FRAME means.
>
> >> You are insane and you cannot read.
>
> >
>
> > No it is you who don't know what a reference frame means.
>
>
>
> It's not between you and me. Look at Chapter 2 of your FRESHMAN physics
>
> text to find out what "reference frame" means.
>
> You don't know what it means, and you'll discover that by reading.

I did. Do you know what a reference frame is?

>
>
>
> > In any case it is irrelevant.
>
>
>
> Of course it's relevant that you don't know what the words mean.

It is not relevant....Every SR observer claims that he is in
an non-existence inertial frame that possesses all the exclusive
properties of the preferred aether frame. What that mean is that
an inertial frame is the aether frame. Unfortunately no SR or LET observer is at rest in the aether frame and that's why the math derived from the
aether frame is incomplete.

[kenseto]

Car A uses his clock second to determine Car B's speed and
thus gets the gamma_AB.
Car B uses his clock second to determine Car A's speed and
thus gets the gamma_BA

[Big Dog]

On 10/9/2012 10:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:43:19 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/9/2012 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>

>>> No it is you who don't know what a reference frame means.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not between you and me. Look at Chapter 2 of your FRESHMAN physics
>> text to find out what "reference frame" means.
>>
>> You don't know what it means, and you'll discover that by reading.
>
> I did. Do you know what a reference frame is?

Bullshit. You CLEARLY do not know what a reference frame is.
This I know because you declared that something exists that your
freshman physics textbook clearly describes.

You're a fucking liar, Seto, if you claim you've read and understood
what "reference frame" means.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:11:47 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > 2 mutually moving clocks creates perfect symmetry.
>
> >
>
> > All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
>
> > different rates....
>
> > thus there is no symmetry.
>
>
>
> Kenseto told us assertion is not valid argument.
>
> where do you see in symmetry setting the source of asymmetry ?

There is no symmetry between clocks in relative motion....
they accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

>
>
>
>
>
> > The GPS confirms this....
>
> > they had to redefine the GPS second to
>
> > have 4.46 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS
>
> > in synch with the ground clock
>
>
>
> I am sorry, evaluation implicitly expects
>
> your ability to distinguish what is symmetrical and what is not.
>
>
>
> GPS is not. 2 mutually inertially moving clocks are.

Two mutually inertial frame do not exist in our universe.

>
>
>
> >
>
> > So you support my conclusion that there is no symmetry between
>
> > two relative clocks.....Right?
>
>
>
> Not at all, I just wait for your finished education about symmetry.

But there is no symmetry....perhaps you can give me an actual case
of symmetry?.....not an asserted symmetry.

[Big Dog]

On 10/9/2012 10:29 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 10:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:43:19 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2012 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not between you and me. Look at Chapter 2 of your FRESHMAN physics
>>> text to find out what "reference frame" means.
>>>
>>> You don't know what it means, and you'll discover that by reading.
>>
>> I did. Do you know what a reference frame is?
>
> Bullshit. You CLEARLY do not know what a reference frame is.
> This I know because you declared that something exists that your
> freshman physics textbook clearly describes.

Sorry, another typo.

Bullshit. You CLEARLY do not know what a reference frame is. This I know

because you declared that something does NOT exist that your

[Paul B. Andersen]

This is wrong.

A rod with proper length L is passing you with the speed v.

Let's apply the Lorentz transform:

|=============|-------------> x' -> v
-L 0
|-------------|-------------> x
0
Event E0:
You are at x=0, the front of the rod adjacent.
The coordinates of this event are:
x = 0, t = 0, x' = 0, t' = 0

--------------|=============|---> x' -> v
-L -L 0
|-------------|-----------------> x
0

Event E1:
You are at x=0, the end of the rod adjacent.
The coordinates of this event are:
x' = -L, t' = L/v
x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (-L + L)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0
t = (t' + vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (L/v - vL/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t = (L/v)(1 - v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t = (L/v)sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Since the rod has used the time (L/v)sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to pass
you with the speed v, you can only conclude that the length
of the rod was L sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

The same goes for the distance to the Earth.
You are the muon, and the atmosphere with proper length L
is passing you with the speed v.

>
> In the muon's case, the muon corresponds to you,
> and the diameter of the earth corresponds to the
> moving rod. On this model, the diameter of the earth
> is contracted in the muon's frame but the distance
> to the earth is a vt distance and is therefore not length
> contracted in the same way in the muon's frame??
>
> Alen
>

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Alen]

> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

OK, so the distance is still vt, but t is shorter than
L/v. Thanks

As you know, I do not support Minkowski spacetime
as being correct, but I wondered how you orthodox
people answered the question :)

Alen

[Poutnik]

Dne úterý, 9. øíjna 2012 17:33:04 UTC+2 kenseto napsal(a):

> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:11:47 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > > All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
> > > different rates....
> > > thus there is no symmetry.
>
> > Kenseto told us assertion is not valid argument.
> > where do you see in symmetry setting the source of asymmetry ?
>
> There is no symmetry between clocks in relative motion....
> they accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

There is perfect both and mirror symmetry between them,
no sourse of asymmetry.
Their clocks tick by the identical pace.
Your supposed asymmetry has sour in lack of SR knowledge.

>
> > > The GPS confirms this....
> > > they had to redefine the GPS second to
> > > have 4.46 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS

> > > in synch with the ground clock.

And this is another evidence of lack of your RT knowledge.
GPS is very diferent asymetrical case,
where GR effects come by asymmetrical way.

BTE according to IRT a half of GPS sats would have to be
set for drift 45+7 us/day and the other half to 45-7 us/day.
nobody would be able to use GPS.

> > I am sorry, evaluation implicitly expects
> > your ability to distinguish what is symmetrical and what is not.
> > GPS is not. 2 mutually inertially moving clocks are.

> Two mutually inertial frame do not exist in our universe.

For every object there is a frame where is no fictious force,
therefore it is an inertial frame. and if there is an inertial frame,
there is infinite number of other inertial frames.

>
> > > So you support my conclusion that there is no symmetry between
> > > two relative clocks.....Right?

> > Not at all, I just wait for your finished education about symmetry.

> But there is no symmetry....perhaps you can give me an actual case
> of symmetry?.....not an asserted symmetry.

It is exact opposite, can you give actual and not asserted source
of asymmetry in totally symmetrical settings ?

[Poutnik]

Dne úterý, 9. øíjna 2012 14:40:46 UTC+2 kenseto napsal(a):

Really ?
Your assertions are in strong disagreement with experiments
and with very basic physical and geometrical principles.

The former case has perfectly mirror symmetry,
if you perform reflecting operation of symmetry,
you have to get and you would get identical results.

The latter case has perfect rotation symmetry per 120 degress.
If you perform rotation symmetry operation,
you have to get and you would get identical results.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:24:34 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne úterý, 9. øíjna 2012 14:40:46 UTC+2 kenseto napsal(a):
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:26:57 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 2 mutually moving clocks creates perfect symmetry.
>
> > > > > All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
>
> > > > > different rates....
>
> > > > > thus there is no symmetry.
>
> >
>
> > > > Kenseto told us assertion is not valid argument.
>
> > > > where do you see in symmetry setting the source of asymmetry ?
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And you have avoided to answer the symmetrical 3 clock setting,
>
> > > each mutually relatively move at speed v, lets say giving gamma = 2.
>
> >
>
> > Sigh....each observer will determine a different gamma for any
>
> > clock moving wrt him. Your assertion that they measure the
>
> > same v is wrong.
>
>
>
> Really ?
>
> Your assertions are in strong disagreement with experiments
>
> and with very basic physical and geometrical principles.

No such experiments exists. The only way you can get symmetry as you
asserted is that all three clocks are at rest wrt each other.

>
>
>
> The former case has perfectly mirror symmetry,
>
> if you perform reflecting operation of symmetry,
>
> you have to get and you would get identical results.

Go ahead and do it and tell us the results.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:39:45 -0700 (PDT)

> > Really ?
> > Your assertions are in strong disagreement with experiments
> > and with very basic physical and geometrical principles.
>
> No such experiments exists. The only way you can get symmetry as you
> asserted is that all three clocks are at rest wrt each other.

There is no way
to make you understand the symmetry or SR or reference frames.
You are not able to explain source of asymmetry in symmetrical settings,

> >
> > The former case has perfectly mirror symmetry,
> >
> > if you perform reflecting operation of symmetry,
> >
> > you have to get and you would get identical results.
>
> Go ahead and do it and tell us the results.

They are know for long time, if you bother to learn.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Quite.
Lorentz contraction and time dilation are two sides of the same coin.

> As you know, I do not support Minkowski spacetime
> as being correct, but I wondered how you orthodox
> people answered the question :)

And it's rather irritating that cosmic muons
support what you don't think is correct, right?

[shuba]

Poutnik wrote:

> There is no way
> to make you understand the symmetry or SR or reference frames.

That is a huge understatement. Seto is so pathetic it's tragic.

> You are not able to explain source of asymmetry in symmetrical settings,

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Symmetry is a wonderful
and integral part of modern physics, but there is are differences
between fundamental symmetries of nature as expressed in the
formality of physical theories and symmetries inherent in specific
(real or assumed) setups of clocks, rods, or whatever. Fundamental
symmetries are always true, at least to the extent that the models
being used are accurate and within their appropriate domain of
applicability. The symmetries of specific setups, while often of
great practical problem-solving value, do not have the same
fundamental nature. Many times I have seen people mix these two
types of symmetry up in physics discussions, leading to confusion.

A fun informational and historical look at fundamental symmetries
in modern physics is given in some podcasts available at the link
below.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/symmetry

I recommend listening to the whole series, but the part most
relevant to relativity is this one, #5.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/symmetry/symmetry5.mp3


---Tim Shuba---

[Poutnik]

shuba from t...@sh.uba
posted Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:50:11 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > There is no way
> > to make you understand the symmetry or SR or reference frames.
>
> That is a huge understatement. Seto is so pathetic it's tragic.
>
> > You are not able to explain source of asymmetry in symmetrical settings,
>
> I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

I am trying to show that
2 relatively inertialy moving clocks have enough symmetry
not to have reason for

gamma time dilation in one direction
and 1 / gamma contraction in the opposite one,

as Kenseto IRT tries to tell us.

> Symmetry is a wonderful
> and integral part of modern physics, but there is are differences
> between fundamental symmetries of nature as expressed in the
> formality of physical theories and symmetries inherent in specific
> (real or assumed) setups of clocks, rods, or whatever. Fundamental
> symmetries are always true, at least to the extent that the models
> being used are accurate and within their appropriate domain of
> applicability. The symmetries of specific setups, while often of
> great practical problem-solving value, do not have the same
> fundamental nature. Many times I have seen people mix these two
> types of symmetry up in physics discussions, leading to confusion.
>
> A fun informational and historical look at fundamental symmetries
> in modern physics is given in some podcasts available at the link
> below.
>
> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/symmetry
>
> I recommend listening to the whole series, but the part most
> relevant to relativity is this one, #5.
>
> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/symmetry/symmetry5.mp3
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 11, 3:06 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 11.10.2012 16:28, Alen wrote:

> Lorentz contraction and time dilation are two sides of the same coin.

Nonsense. A transform with Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction and
Galilean absolute time (observed light speed behaves in a classical
sense) is sufficient to satisfy the null results of the MMX. However,
a transform built around this Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction
with Galilean absolute time cannot explain the extra immortality of
muons. <shrug>

PD has already agreed to this point. Tom is cautiously staying away
from this one. We know the little professor is still very sore, but
if the little professor has some time left after chasing his own tail,
would he like to get embarrassed again contradicting Koobee
Wublee? :-)

Hehehehe... Did Koobee Wublee ever bluff? Ahahahaha...

> > As you know, I do not support Minkowski spacetime
> > as being correct, but I wondered how you orthodox
> > people answered the question :)
>
> And it's rather irritating that cosmic muons
> support what you don't think is correct, right?

The cosmic muons do not falsify any of the infinite transforms that
also satisfy the null results of the MMX either. Cherry-picking a
model out of an infinite possibilities without any unique support has
(1 / infinity) chance of being correct/valid, no? <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:2916f577-1d41-4c4a...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 11, 3:06 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 11.10.2012 16:28, Alen wrote:

> Lorentz contraction and time dilation are two sides of the same coin.

Nonsense. A transform with Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction and
Galilean absolute time (observed light speed behaves in a classical
sense) is sufficient to satisfy the null results of the MMX. However,
a transform built around this Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction
with Galilean absolute time cannot explain the extra immortality of
muons. <shrug>

________________________________________________
Indeed it fails many other tests, including the Galilean principle of
relativity and conservation of momentum and energy. That is why Lorentz
length contraction and Lorentz time dilation are "two sides of the same
coin" like Andersen said; you can't have one without the other.

If I was you, I would be listening to what this Andersen person says. I
haven't seen him make a single error in his responses to you, and he
obviously knows vastly more about physics than you do. You might learn
something.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 11, 11:38 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:

> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> > A transform with Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction and
> > Galilean absolute time (observed light speed behaves in a classical
> > sense) is sufficient to satisfy the null results of the MMX. However,
> > a transform built around this Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction
> > with Galilean absolute time cannot explain the extra immortality of
> > muons. <shrug>
>

> Indeed it fails many other tests, including the Galilean principle of
> relativity

So? FitzGerald’s transform (the said transform with just the Lorentz-
FitzGerald length contraction) behaves like the Galilean transform at
low speeds. What else do you want? Besides, there have never been
any experiments that have shown the principle of relativity to be
valid in the first place. <shrug>

> and conservation of momentum and energy.

peter webb does not know what he is bitching about as usual. <shrug>

> That is why Lorentz
> length contraction and Lorentz time dilation are "two sides of the same
> coin" like Andersen said; you can't have one without the other.

Nonsense. The various combinations of the length contraction/
extension and time dilation/anti-dilation are found all over the place
in the transforms that also satisfy the null results of the MMX.
There is no experimental proof that they are the two sides to a coin.
<shrug>

> If I was you, I would be listening to what this Andersen person says. I
> haven't seen him make a single error in his responses to you, and he
> obviously knows vastly more about physics than you do. You might learn
> something.

The little professor is a crack pot himself. He has many blunders.
The biggest one is his treatment on the twin’s paradox. Higher level
self-styled physicists have already agreed with Koobee Wublee and
moved on to the stage of preaching the proper time as what all age
through. That leaves the little professor holding the bag. If you
don’t believe in Koobee Wublee, just read Tom’s posts on the twins’
paradox. <shrug>

Being hired as a male prostitute to do lip service for the self-styled
physicists, peter webb is indeed failing his assignment. What does
anyone expect from an Einstein Dingleberry? <shrug>