How to make SR math universal

[ken...@att.net]

SR math is restricted to inertial frames. However the following
modifications to SR math will enable it appicable universally:
1. The local speed of light = (Frequency of the source)(universal
wavelength of the source)
For example:: if the source is sodium the universal wavelength of
sodium is 589 nm.

2. The incoming speed of sodium light = (measured frequency of
incoming sodium light)(universal wavelength of sodium 589 nm)

3. The relative velocity of an object (B) moving wrt an observer (A)
is determined as follows:
Vab = (Frequency of a standard source in A's frame - incoming
frequency of identical standard source in B's frame as measured by A)
(universal wavelength of the standard source)

4. Use Vab in all SR math will make SR math universal.....that is it
will make SR math applciable in all environments, including gravity.

5. However, the modified SR math is incomplete. Why? Because it is
based on the assumption that the SR observer is in a state of more at
rest than the observed object. A new theory of relativity called IRT
is formulated. IRT math includes the modified SR math as a subset.
IRT math also includes the fact that the observed object is in a
state of more at rest than the IRT observer and thus there is a second
set of IRT equations to include such possibility. A paper on IRT is
availble in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/17/12 9:48 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> SR math is restricted to inertial frames.

Not really, but general relativity does cover all cases.

Background for Seto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

> Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in an inertial frame of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré[1] and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[2]
>
> It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.[3] Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.[4]

> General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

[Michael Moroney]

"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> writes:

>SR math is restricted to inertial frames. However the following
>modifications to SR math will enable it appicable universally:

Already been done. The set of modications are called "general relativity".

>5. However, the modified SR math is incomplete. Why? Because it is
>based on the assumption that the SR observer is in a state of more at
>rest than the observed object.

The two theories of relativity have dispensed with foolishnesses such
as absolute motion. That's why they are called theories of *relativity*.

[LaLALa]

On May 17, 9:48 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> 4. Use Vab in all SR math will make SR math universal.....that is it
> will make SR math applciable in all environments, including gravity.
>

I don't understand, Mr. Seto, the value of what you are proposing.
Scientists already know how to make the SR math universal when there
is gravity present. That is why it is called the general version of
relativity. General means it applies in all environments even when
there is gravity that needs to be accounted for. Why would doing the
things you suggest be better than the general version of relativity?

[xxein]

xxein: Oh? A second set of equations? How do I know which set to
use?

[Paul Cardinale]

On May 17, 8:11 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> writes:
> >SR math is restricted to inertial frames. However the following
> >modifications to SR math will enable it appicable universally:
>
> Already been done.  The set of modications are called "general relativity".
>

No so. SR handles non-inertial frames just fine. It just doesn't
handle gravity.

Paul Cardinale

[Paul Cardinale]

On May 17, 8:07 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 9:48 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 4. Use Vab in all SR math will make SR math universal.....that is it
> > will make SR math applciable in all environments, including gravity.
>
> I don't understand, Mr. Seto, the value of what you are proposing.
>

I'll explain it to you. The kenseto is dumber than a pile of dog
turds. He doesn't understand any word with more than two syllables;
and doesn't understand a lot of two-syllable words (such as
'subset'). Nothing he writes has any value (except occasionally for
entertainment purposes). He is also a lying pig ... (oops, that's an
insult to swine).

Paul Cardinale

[ken...@att.net]

The rules are as follows:
1. In the lab, the accelerated clock (decaying particles) will run
slower than the lab clock....that's why SR predictions agree with
accelerator lab experiments.
2. A clock accelerated away from the observer will run slower than the
observer's clock and the equation that predicts the slower clock rate
is used.
3. A clock in a higher gravitational potential the slower clock rate
equation is used.
4. However, if a clock is not originated from the observer then there
is no way of knowing it is running slower or faster than the
observer's clcok and thus both equations must be used to calculate its
rate....the result that agree with observation is the correct result.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 17, 11:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/12 9:48 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> > SR math is restricted to inertial frames.
>
>    Not really, but general relativity does cover all cases.

The proposed modified SR math will cover all cases....there is no need
for GRT.

> > General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ken...@att.net]

On May 17, 11:11 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> writes:
> >SR math is restricted to inertial frames. However the following
> >modifications to SR math will enable it appicable universally:
>
> Already been done.  The set of modications are called "general relativity".

The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT in all
applicatuons....it is much simpler and with no paradoxes.

[ken...@att.net]

The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT/SRT. It is much more
simplier and it devoids of all paradoxes resulted from the constant
speed of light postulate.

[ken...@att.net]

You are a piece of shit.

[LaLALa]

On May 18, 8:24 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT/SRT. It is much more
> simplier and it devoids of all paradoxes resulted from the constant
> speed of light postulate.

Forgive me, Mr. Seto, but this does not seem of much value. As far as
I know scientists don't place much value on a proposed theory being
simpler. I am guessing that you want to find a theory that looks like
classical physics and still does what general relativity does. You
should be all means work on that. What will be important to scientists
is that you show you can do calculated predictions like what general
relativity can do. The advantages you have proposed are practically
worthless compared to that. They may be very valuable to you
personally but not to scientists I believe.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 18, 9:39 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 8:24 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT/SRT. It is much more
> > simplier and it devoids of all paradoxes resulted from the constant
> > speed of light postulate.
>
> Forgive me, Mr. Seto, but this does not seem of much value. As far as
> I know scientists don't place much value on a proposed theory being
> simpler.

It appears that you don't know much.

>I am guessing that you want to find a theory that looks like
> classical physics and still does what general relativity does. You
> should be all means work on that. What will be important to scientists
> is that you show you can do calculated predictions like what general
> relativity can do. The advantages you have proposed are practically
> worthless compared to that. They may be very valuable to you
> personally but not to scientists I believe.

It appears that you are very dense.....I gave the modified SR math
that can be used to replace GRT math in all applications.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 8:14 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On May 17, 11:07 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/17/12 9:48 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>> SR math is restricted to inertial frames.
>>
>> Not really, but general relativity does cover all cases.
>
> The proposed modified SR math will cover all cases....there is no need
> for GRT.

Special and general relativity cover relativistic phenomena
exquisitely well, Seto. You should at least learn special
relativity. In almost 20 years, you have never shown that you
can work the simplest of relativity problems. Not once!

Go through this material, Seto:
Special Relativity Lecture Notes
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/index.html
>
> Frames of Reference
> Inertial Frames
> Laws of Physics in Inertial Frames
> Newton's Second Law
> Laws of Physics in Non-Inertial Frames
> The Special and General Theories of Relativity
> Some History
> The Lorentz Transformation
> The Concept of Simultaneity
> Faster than Light Travel
> Synchronization of Clocks
> Time Dilation
> Lorentz Contraction
> The Equivalence of All Inertial Frames
> The Twin Paradox
> Conclusion
> Famous People
> Special Relativity Practice Problems

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 8:25 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> You are a piece of shit.

Crackpots that cannot articulate a scientific argument, resort to
name calling.

[Sam Wormley]

Seto, you have yet to demonstrate that IRT can make any
predictions at all. For example, I have asked you to
use IRT to calculate the time dilation of an earth satellite
clock in a circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an
altitude of 212 km above MSL.

You don't even know where to start! Pitiful!

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 8:17 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT in all
> applicatuons....it is much simpler and with no paradoxes.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> 2. A clock accelerated away from the observer will run slower than the
> observer's clock and the equation that predicts the slower clock rate
> is used.

Seto confuses acceleration and velocity! :-o

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> The rules are as follows:
> 1. In the lab, the accelerated clock (decaying particles) will run
> slower than the lab clock....that's why SR predictions agree with
> accelerator lab experiments.
> 2. A clock accelerated away from the observer will run slower than the
> observer's clock and the equation that predicts the slower clock rate
> is used.
> 3. A clock in a higher gravitational potential the slower clock rate
> equation is used.
> 4. However, if a clock is not originated from the observer then there
> is no way of knowing it is running slower or faster than the
> observer's clcok and thus both equations must be used to calculate its
> rate....the result that agree with observation is the correct result.

[LaLALa]

On May 18, 9:17 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 18, 9:39 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 8:24 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT/SRT. It is much more
> > > simplier and it devoids of all paradoxes resulted from the constant
> > > speed of light postulate.
>
> > Forgive me, Mr. Seto, but this does not seem of much value. As far as
> > I know scientists don't place much value on a proposed theory being
> > simpler.
>
> It appears that you don't know much.

That may be so, Mr. Seto, after all I am not a scientist. But I have
read a lot about what scientists do and how they do it. You may be
deeply disappointed that they do not see the goal of science to be
what you think it should be. If that should turn out to be a basic
disagreement who do you think should end up winning that argument, Mr.
Seto?

>
> >I am guessing that you want to find a theory that looks like
> > classical physics and still does what general relativity does. You
> > should be all means work on that. What will be important to scientists
> > is that you show you can do calculated predictions like what general
> > relativity can do. The advantages you have proposed are practically
> > worthless compared to that. They may be very valuable to you
> > personally but not to scientists I believe.
>
> It appears that you are very dense.....I gave the modified SR math
> that can be used to replace GRT math in all applications.

But you have not shown that using this math actually predicts things.
Writing down equations for others to use is not the same thing as
actually using them is it, Mr. Seto? People who have done predictions
with general relativity have not only pointed to the equations that
should be used but have actually used them with calculators to produce
numbers that can be compared to measurements. Have you actually used
your equations with a calculator to produce numbers like scientists
do?

If what you believe is important is to give something simpler and to
write down equations that others should use and scientists believe
that it is more important that you use the equations with a calculator
to produce numbers that can be compared to experiment and that being
simpler is not so important -- then who is to win this argument over
what is important?

[ken...@att.net]

No idiot.....after acceleration you get increase in velocity (increase
in the state of absolute motion) that affect the intrinsic rate of the
clock. Gee you are stupid.

[ken...@att.net]

Wormy you are a piece of shit.

[Paul Cardinale]

> You are a piece of shit.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Here we have the kenseto's new way of conceding. It used to be that
when he couldn't come up with a legit reply (which is always), he
would call the person a "runt of SR". Now when he's beaten, he calls
the person "a piece of shit". Keep in mind that every time the
kenseto calls someone "a piece of shit", it really means "I'm too
stupid too come up with a real reply."

Paul Cardinale

[ken...@att.net]

On May 18, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey idiot can you calculate the time dilation of a satellite using GRT
given the
following data:

V_ab=10000m/s
c'=290,000 km/s
V_ab abd c' are determined as follows:
V_ab = (freuency of the standard source in A's frame - measured
frequency of incoming standard light in B's frame)(universal
wavelength of standard source)
c'=(frequency of incoming standard light)(universal wavelength of
standard light source)

My guess is that you can't....now do you see how stupid you are?

[ken...@att.net]

Hey idiot....It can be used to calculate time dilation if you have the
following data available:
V_ab=10000m/s
c'=290,000 km/s
V_ab and c' are determined as follows:

V_ab = (freuency of the standard source in A's frame - measured
frequency of incoming standard light in B's frame)(universal
wavelength of standard source)
c'=(frequency of incoming standard light)(universal wavelength of
standard light source)

Gee you are very stupid.

[ken...@att.net]

That makes you a crackpot....you never articulate any scientific
arguement.

[LaLALa]

Why would you call me stupid, Mr. Seto, if you are the one to do the
calculations with a calculator and producing a number?

To see what I mean, you should decide which of the variables above you
would like to calculate the value of. Then put in numbers for
everything else and then actually punch numbers into a calculator to
find the number you said you were going to predict.

Let's say you were going to calculate this quantity: (frequency of
incoming standard light). You would want to calculate this because it
is what you would like to predict a value for so that you can see it
compared to an actually measured value for that quantity.

Let's suppose the standard light were sodium. Now according to the
above you know values for Vab, c', the universal wavelength of the
source, and the frequency of the standard source in A's frame. So
shouldn't you be able to find the value of the frequency of the
incoming standard light? Can you please put numbers in the calculator
like scientists do and produce a number out? I am guessing you want to
be thought of as a scientist and so should do the things that
scientists do.

[ken...@att.net]

Because you are stupid?

>
> Why would you call me stupid, Mr. Seto, if you are the one to do the
> calculations with a calculator and producing a number?
>
> To see what I mean, you should decide which of the variables above you
> would like to calculate the value of. Then put in numbers for
> everything else and then actually punch numbers into a calculator to
> find the number you said you were going to predict.

Hey idiot....I said that we want to calculate the time dilation. Gee
you are stupid.

>
> Let's say you were going to calculate this quantity: (frequency of
> incoming standard light). You would want to calculate this because it
> is what you would like to predict a value for so that you can see it
> compared to an actually measured value for that quantity.
>
> Let's suppose the standard light were sodium. Now according to the
> above you know values for Vab, c', the universal wavelength of the
> source, and the frequency of the standard source in A's frame. So
> shouldn't you be able to find the value of the frequency of the
> incoming standard light? Can you please put numbers in the calculator
> like scientists do and produce a number out? I am guessing you want to
> be thought of as a scientist and so should do the things that
> scientists do.

Hey idiot....V_ab is calculated from a measured incoming frequency.
Gee you are stupid.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 3:12 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> Hey idiot....It can be used to calculate time dilation if you have the
> following data available:
> V_ab=10000m/s
> c'=290,000 km/s
> V_ab and c' are determined as follows:
> V_ab = (freuency of the standard source in A's frame - measured
> frequency of incoming standard light in B's frame)(universal
> wavelength of standard source)
> c'=(frequency of incoming standard light)(universal wavelength of
> standard light source)
>

[Sam Wormley]

Back to name calling, eh Seto!
You *cannot* work ANY relativity problems. Your grade is F- Seto.

[Sam Wormley]

It's a for sure, Seto, that you can't! Pitiful!

[Sam Wormley]

Or a decrease in velocity, Seto!

[YBM]

If you think about the utterly stupid Seto's idea that acceleration
can only increase "absolute speed" but not decrease it, you can set
up a very simple gedanken where two bodies can have a arbitrary
difference in their absolute speed while being not only relatively
at rest but at the same place too.

In Seto's demented world you can have a non null relative velocity
while being relatively at rest, we knew that, now it appears that
two bodies with zero relative motion, at the same place can have
different "absolute" velocities...

All of this comes after the famous "Moving sodium is no more sodium
anymore", "Absolute vertical direction", "Invariance of closing speeds".

This is very sad.

[LaLALa]

And which quantity in the equations above are the time dilation, Mr.
Seto?
In other words, how would you propose to write an equation with time
dilation on the left side and these other quantities on the right
side?

[time dilation] =
Please fill in the details to show how you would do this calculation.

>
>
>
> > Let's say you were going to calculate this quantity: (frequency of
> > incoming standard light). You would want to calculate this because it
> > is what you would like to predict a value for so that you can see it
> > compared to an actually measured value for that quantity.
>
> > Let's suppose the standard light were sodium. Now according to the
> > above you know values for Vab, c', the universal wavelength of the
> > source, and the frequency of the standard source in A's frame. So
> > shouldn't you be able to find the value of the frequency of the
> > incoming standard light? Can you please put numbers in the calculator
> > like scientists do and produce a number out? I am guessing you want to
> > be thought of as a scientist and so should do the things that
> > scientists do.
>
> Hey idiot....V_ab is calculated from a measured incoming frequency.
> Gee you are stupid.

OK, so you are not going to predict this quantity, you are going to
predict some other quantity.
What other quantity are you going to predict that you can then measure
to check if your prediction is right?

Surely you know what scientists do.
For example, with general relativity you know the mass of the sun and
the angular diameter of the sun. And so when a star passes near the
sun scientists can calculate from general relativity how far displaced
the image of the star will be because of the bending of the light and
then they compare that with how far displaced the image actually is.
In this case they calculated the displacement with a number using
general relativity and they measured that quantity too. This is how
the prediction is tested.

So you predict a number. Decide what number you would like to predict
and then use your equations to calculate it. Then experimental
observation will measure that number. That will be how your prediction
is tested.

You do understand this don't you, Mr. Seto? This is doing science.

[YBM]

Le 19.05.2012 01:55, YBM a �crit :
> Le 19.05.2012 01:40, Sam Wormley a �crit :

>> On 5/18/12 12:35 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>> On May 18, 11:14 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2. A clock accelerated away from the observer will run slower than the
>>>>> observer's clock and the equation that predicts the slower clock rate
>>>>> is used.
>>>>
>>>> Seto confuses acceleration and velocity! :-o
>>>
>>> No idiot.....after acceleration you get increase in velocity (increase
>>> in the state of absolute motion) that affect the intrinsic rate of the
>>> clock. Gee you are stupid.
>>
>> Or a decrease in velocity, Seto!
>
> If you think about the utterly stupid Seto's idea that acceleration
> can only increase "absolute speed" but not decrease it, you can set
> up a very simple gedanken where two bodies can have a arbitrary
> difference in their absolute speed while being not only relatively
> at rest but at the same place too.
>
> In Seto's demented world you can have a non null relative velocity
> while being relatively at rest, we knew that, now it appears that
> two bodies with zero relative motion, at the same place can have
> different "absolute" velocities...

And I forgot these:

- absolute motion with respect to light
- multiple sources for a single light ray
- superset that does not contain the whole subset
- multiple absolute frames, moving wrt each others
- velocity you cannot cancel out and not even diminish
by accelerating in whatever direction you want, at any
rate you want
- distinct motions wrt something for two objects, but no
relative motion at all between these objects

[LaLALa]

On May 18, 7:04 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You do understand this don't you, Mr. Seto? This is doing science.

Mr. Seto, I have to confess that I'm not sure things are going to work
out for you to be a scientist. Every scientist knows how to do
calculations of all kinds.

For example lets suppose that I were to toss a ball directly up in the
air at say 60 feet per second. When I do this I want to be able to
predict how long it will be up in the air. I want to make this
prediction to see how well some equations work that I've been taught.
When I get that number I can compare that to how long someone else
measures it to be in the air with a stopwatch. If the prediction is
right then I know the equation is right.

The equation I've been taught is
y = v0 * t - (1/2) * g * t^2.
Now I know v0 because it is 60 ft per second.
I know g because it is 32 ft per second squared.
I know y because it lands on the ground and so is -3 ft below where I
threw it from.
Now I should be able to predict the time t because it is the only
variable I don't know in the equation. But I can use the equation to
calculate it. And you can use the equation to calculate it too because
you want to be known as a scientist and so you must be able to do
calculations and this is a very simple calculation.

Let's say my answer that I calculated is 4.3 seconds. Is the answer
you calculated the same or different than this answer, Mr. Seto?

Since you want to be known as a scientist, Mr. Seto, please do this
calculation to show that you are a scientist.

[Sam Wormley]

But, Seto, you have *never* been able to calculate anything! What's

the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.

Why can't your theory come up with the answer?

[Michael Moroney]

Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:

> But, Seto, you have *never* been able to calculate anything! What's
> the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
> orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.

> Why can't your theory come up with the answer?

That's too complicated for him, that's why he can't answer it.
Let's give him a simpler problem.

Hey, Ken, what is (-6)/(-2) ?

[Michael Moroney]

"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> writes:

>On May 17, 11:11 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> writes:
>> >SR math is restricted to inertial frames. However the following
>> >modifications to SR math will enable it appicable universally:
>>
>> Already been done. The set of modications are called "general relativity".

>The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT in all
>applicatuons....it is much simpler and with no paradoxes.

Why would anyone want to replace a theory that works correctly every
time with an inferior* one?

(*) Obviously a theory that gives two answers to a problem, one correct,
one wrong, but can't tell you which one is wrong is inferior to a theory
that gives one single correct answer every single time.

[ken...@att.net]

ROTFLOL.....Paul Cardinale likes to be called a piece of shit.

[ken...@att.net]

So you sdmitted that you can't calculate the time dilation with the
data I gave you using GR....right? It follows from that admission that
you are a very stupid runt of the SRians....right?

[ken...@att.net]

On May 17, 11:07 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 9:48 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 4. Use Vab in all SR math will make SR math universal.....that is it
> > will make SR math applciable in all environments, including gravity.
>
> I don't understand, Mr. Seto, the value of what you are proposing.

> Scientists already know how to make the SR math universal when there
> is gravity present.

Hey idiot...the modified SR math can be used to replace GR math and
resolves the following problematic observations encountered by GR:
1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.
2. galactic rotational curve problem.
3. Poineer 10 problem.
4. the observed horizon problem.
5. The observed horizon problem


>That is why it is called the general version of
> relativity. General means it applies in all environments even when
> there is gravity that needs to be accounted for. Why would doing the
> things you suggest be better than the general version of relativity?

[ken...@att.net]

Sigh you are a moron....V_ab is used to replace v and c' is used to
replace c in SR time dilation equations. You are too stupid to
understand anything. You need to read my paper in the following link
before asking anymore questions.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

> You do understand this don't you, Mr. Seto? This is doing science.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[YBM]

Le 19.05.2012 14:44, ken...@att.net a écrit :
> On May 17, 11:07 am, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 17, 9:48 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 4. Use Vab in all SR math will make SR math universal.....that is it
>>> will make SR math applciable in all environments, including gravity.
>>
>> I don't understand, Mr. Seto, the value of what you are proposing.
>> Scientists already know how to make the SR math universal when there
>> is gravity present.
>
> Hey idiot...the modified SR math can be used to replace GR math and
> resolves the following problematic observations encountered by GR:
> 1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.
> 2. galactic rotational curve problem.
> 3. Poineer 10 problem.

Given the fact that there is no more "Pioneer anomaly", we can conclude
that your "theory" is refuted by experiment then...

> 4. the observed horizon problem.
> 5. The observed horizon problem

Not only "IRT" is unable to compute anything, as Ken Shito demonstrated,
but it is able to solve a (non)-problem TWICE.

[ken...@att.net]

Fucking idiot....irt uses different parameters to calculate time
dilation of a satellite. For example:
Delta(T_ab) = Delta(T_aa)*sqrt(1-(V_ab)^2/c'^2)
Now can you use V_ab and c' in GR equations to calculate time
dilation? The answer: you can't.
Now do you see how stupid you are?

[ken...@att.net]

[ken...@att.net]

On May 19, 9:01 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Le 19.05.2012 14:44, ken...@att.net a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 11:07 am, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On May 17, 9:48 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net>  wrote:
>
> >>> 4. Use Vab in all SR math will make SR math universal.....that is it
> >>> will make SR math applciable in all environments, including gravity.
>
> >> I don't understand, Mr. Seto, the value of what you are proposing.
> >> Scientists already know how to make the SR math universal when there
> >> is gravity present.
>
> > Hey idiot...the modified SR math can be used to replace GR math and
> > resolves the following problematic observations encountered by GR:
> > 1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.
> > 2. galactic rotational curve problem.
> > 3. Poineer 10 problem.
>
> Given the fact that there is no more "Pioneer anomaly", we can conclude
> that your "theory" is refuted by experiment then...

No idiot....they swept the problem under the rug by math
manipulations. Pioneer 10 still deviated from the path predicted by
GR.

>
> > 4. the observed horizon problem.
> > 5. The observed horizon problem

5. the observed flatness problem.

>

> Not only "IRT" is unable to compute anything, as Ken Shito demonstrated,

> but it is able to solve a (non)-problem TWICE.- Hide quoted text -

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 8:03 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

>
> Fucking idiot....irt uses different parameters to calculate time
> dilation of a satellite. For example:
> Delta(T_ab) = Delta(T_aa)*sqrt(1-(V_ab)^2/c'^2)
> Now can you use V_ab and c' in GR equations to calculate time
> dilation? The answer: you can't.
> Now do you see how stupid you are?
>
>

I don't care what your equations use, Seto! You can't predict
anything with them. You never have and you never will.

What is the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a

circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of

212 km above MSL?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 7:44 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> 1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.

Dark Energy -- Currently being investigated

> 2. galactic rotational curve problem.

Dark Matter -- Currently being investigated

> 3. Poineer 10 problem.
Shown not to be a problem - Accounted for by thermal radiation

> 4. the observed horizon problem.
> 5. The observed horizon problem

Neither are a problem - Accounted for by inflation

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 7:34 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> So you sdmitted that you can't calculate the time dilation with the
> data I gave you using GR....right? It follows from that admission that
> you are a very stupid runt of the SRians....right?
>

I can calculate the time dilation of an earth satellite clock

in a circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of

212 km above MSL. I had to use equations derived from general
relativity, because of the differences in gravitation.

But you can't calculate the time dilation, Seto, no mater what
equations or theory you use. You can't do it! Never have and
never will!

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 8:21 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> No idiot....they swept the problem under the rug by math
> manipulations. Pioneer 10 still deviated from the path predicted by
> GR.

Seto, don't you keep up? Pioneer 10 has no contradiction for GR!

> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/16/exotic-explanation-for-pioneer-anomaly-ruled-out
>
> Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507

[Sam Wormley]

Can you even define acceleration, Seto?
Can you even define velocity, Seto?

[ken...@att.net]

In that case I don't care what GR equation you use.
What is the time dilation of an earth satellite clock using GR when
V_ab =1000meter/second
c'= 290000 km/second????

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 9:02 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

You can't get an answer can you, Seto?

[ken...@att.net]

No idiot it is you who can't get an answer.

[ken...@att.net]

ROTFLOL....dark matter, dark energy and inflation are not within GRT
and thus GRT is not a valid theory of the universe.

[ken...@att.net]

Idiot.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 19, 9:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/12 8:21 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> > No idiot....they swept the problem under the rug by math
> > manipulations. Pioneer 10 still deviated from the path predicted by
> > GR.
>
>    Seto, don't you keep up? Pioneer 10 has no contradiction for GR!

Yes it has contradiction for GR. The ad hoc assertion of heat source
causes the anormal path of Pioneer 10 doesn't cut it.
>
>
>
> >http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/16/exotic-explanati...

>
> > Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly

> >  http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507- Hide quoted text -

[Sam Wormley]

Thanks for calling a name again, Seto--typical crackpot behavior!
-Sam

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 10:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On May 19, 9:35 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes it has contradiction for GR. The ad hoc assertion of heat source
> causes the anormal path of Pioneer 10 doesn't cut it.
>

The Pioneer anomalous acceleration has decreased with time ruling
out any flaw in any gravitational theory.

> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/16/exotic-explanation-for-pioneer-anomaly-ruled-out

[Sam Wormley]

[Sam Wormley]

I realize that you are not well read, Seto, but Dark Matter, Dark
Energy and Inflation are contradictions to GR. In fact, Einstein's
cosmological constant moved to the energy side of the equation may
turn out to be just the modelling of Dark Energy with GR!

[ken...@att.net]

On May 19, 11:40 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/12 10:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 9:35 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > Yes it has contradiction for GR. The ad hoc assertion of heat source
> > causes the anormal path of Pioneer 10 doesn't cut it.
>
>    The Pioneer anomalous acceleration has decreased with time ruling
>    out any flaw in any gravitational theory.

What this mean is that the anomalous acceleration is decreased with
increasing distance from the solar system. This means that within the
solar system GR is not a complete theory of gravity.
>
>
>
> >http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/16/exotic-explanati...

>
> > Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly

> >  http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 12:12 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On May 19, 11:40 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> The Pioneer anomalous acceleration has decreased with time ruling
>> out any flaw in any gravitational theory.
>
> What this mean is that the anomalous acceleration is decreased with
> increasing distance from the solar system. This means that within the
> solar system GR is not a complete theory of gravity.

The unusual trajectories of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft as they
leave the solar system are not caused by any exotic new physics but by
*mundane thermal emissions* powered by radioactive decay. That is the
verdict of researchers in the US and Canada, who have compared the
results of an extremely detailed computer simulation of the thermal
forces on one of the craft with the same forces calculated from the
trajectory of the mission. The study also suggests that the observed
reduction of the extra acceleration over time is the result of how
electricity is generated on board the spacecraft and distributed to its
scientific instruments.

[LaLALa]

Good, then you should be able to calculate time dilation because
you've given values for V_ab and c' and then that's all you should
need to calculate time dilation in an equation.
So what is the number when you do that, Mr. Seto?
[time dilation] = ?
Scientists can certain do the calculation when they use v instead of
V_ab and c instead of c'. So you should be able to do it using V_ab
instead of v and c' instead of c. If you want to be thought of as a
scientist then you should show that you can do this calculation isn't
that so?

[LaLALa]

On May 19, 10:15 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> ROTFLOL....dark matter, dark energy and inflation are not within GRT
> and thus GRT is not a valid theory of the universe.

Mr. Seto, as far as I know benzene is not within GRT either. But then
again benzene is not within Newton's theory of mechanics. Does this
mean that neither of these theories are valid theories? Is benzene
predicted by your model?

[LaLALa]

On May 19, 7:44 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:


>
> Hey idiot...the modified SR math can be used to replace GR math and
> resolves the following problematic observations encountered by GR:
> 1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.
> 2. galactic rotational curve problem.
> 3. Poineer 10 problem.
> 4. the observed horizon problem.
> 5. The observed horizon problem
>

Well then, Mr. Seto, surely you can do this and actually show how the
modified math resolves any one of these issues. So let's pick one --
the Pioneer 10 problem. Do the calculation with your modified math and
show that the Pioneer problem goes away. This is a critical claim you
make about your theory and so it would be important for you to punch
the numbers in to demonstrate that it can do what GR cannot do. GR
expects a different number for Pioneer 10 acceleration than what is
observed. So show the number and the calculation that produces it for
your theory.

[LaLALa]

On May 18, 7:59 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Since you want to be known as a scientist, Mr. Seto, please do this
> calculation to show that you are a scientist.

Mr. Seto, I am afraid you are in a bad place. You would very much like
to be thought of as a scientist. I am not a scientist but don't want
to be thought as one either. But scientists do calculations. You make
a lot of noise that makes it appear that you are about to do a
calculation but you do not seem to ever get around to doing one.

In track and field, Mr. Seto, sprinters actually run from the starting
line to the finishing line. People watch them do it from the stands.
If you put on running shoes and shorts and a sleeveless shirt and put
a number on your chest and put your feet in the starting blocks and
put your self in the starting posture and declare yourself the
greatest sprinter that ever lived then people will want to see you
actually run when the starter's pistol fires. But if you never
actually run people will know that you only dream of being a sprinter.

If you want to be a scientist you will have to actually do
calculations and people will want to see you do them. Otherwise they
will know that you only dream of being a scientist.

[ken...@att.net]

Hey idiot read my paper.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[ken...@att.net]

Unfortunately inclduiong a value for CC will destroy the solutions of
GRT in the neigboring regions....that's why they are not able to come
up with a universal value for the CC. Gee you are stupid.

[ken...@att.net]

Hey idiot GRT is a theory of gravity....inventing dark matter and dark
energy to explain observations that are not within theory of GRT is a
defect of GRT. Gee you are stupid.

[ken...@att.net]

>   -Sam- Hide quoted text -

You are welcome....wormy.-

[ken...@att.net]

Delta(Tab)= Delta(Taa)*squrt(1-(Vab)^2/c'^2)

> Scientists can certain do the calculation when they use v instead of
> V_ab and c instead of c'. So you should be able to do it using V_ab
> instead of v and c' instead of c.

No you can't....no v in a gravitational field

If you want to be thought of as a
> scientist then you should show that you can do this calculation isn't
> that so?

I don't have to show an idiot like you anythinbg.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 18, 9:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Let's say you were going to calculate this quantity: (frequency of
> >> incoming standard light). You would want to calculate this because it
> >> is what you would like to predict a value for so that you can see it
> >> compared to an actually measured value for that quantity.
>
> >> Let's suppose the standard light were sodium. Now according to the
> >> above you know values for Vab, c', the universal wavelength of the
> >> source, and the frequency of the standard source in A's frame. So
> >> shouldn't you be able to find the value of the frequency of the
> >> incoming standard light? Can you please put numbers in the calculator
> >> like scientists do and produce a number out? I am guessing you want to
> >> be thought of as a scientist and so should do the things that
> >> scientists do.
>
> > Hey idiot....V_ab is calculated from a measured incoming frequency.
> > Gee you are stupid.
>
>    But, Seto, you have *never* been able to calculate anything! What's

>    the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth

>    orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.
>
>    Why can't your theory come up with the answer?

Fucking idiot....the equation for time dilation in a gravitational
field is as follows:
Delta(Tab)=Delta(Taa)*sqrt((1-(Vab)^2/c'^2))

Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Sam Wormley]

Well, can you calculate an answer or not? What *is* the time

dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth

orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?

[ken...@att.net]

an you calculate time dilation of an satellite using GR with the
following data:
Vab=1000 m/s
C'=290,000 km/s
My guess is that you can't.

[LaLALa]

Mr. Seto, I don't see numbers that you have put in a calculator to
come up with a number out.

>
> > Scientists can certain do the calculation when they use v instead of
> > V_ab and c instead of c'. So you should be able to do it using V_ab
> > instead of v and c' instead of c.
>
> No you can't....no v in a gravitational field

I don't understand this statement at all, Mr. Seto. v stands for
speed. Do you think that speed does not exist for things in a
gravitational field? When I drive to the grocery store I am in a
gravitational field but there is a meter on my dashboard that reminds
me of my speed. If I drop a cup it falls because of gravity and it
certainly has a speed by the time it hits the floor.

>
> If you want to be thought of as a
>
> > scientist then you should show that you can do this calculation isn't
> > that so?
>
> I don't have to show an idiot like you anythinbg.

No of course, Mr. Seto, you don't have to do anything you don't want
to do. It's just that scientists do calculations and you don't. It's
really just a matter of choice on your part. Either be a scientist and
do calculations or do not do calculations and not be a scientist.

[LaLALa]

Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
the above problems go away. There is mention in there of explaining
the Pioneer anomaly by positing the existence of some particles but
there is no calculation in that paper of any kind as to how much
acceleration you would expect from those particles and to show that
this prediction matches the observed anomalous acceleration of
Pioneer. So you sent me on a wild goose chase to your own paper which
did not do what you said it would do.

Then you used foul language and called me names for what you did.

This does not appear to be the behavior of a scientist, Mr. Seto. I
hope you can understand that.

[Sam Wormley]

All that is needed to calculate the time dilation of an earth
satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude of
212 km above MSL, is the mass of the earth and orbital altitude,
both easily measured.

I repeat: *can you or can you not* derive the time dilation of an

earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0)
at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?

If you know general relativity, as you claim you do, you would be
shoving the correct time dilation answer down my throat.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 21, 8:26 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 9:04 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 3:37 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good, then you should be able to calculate time dilation because
> > > you've given values for V_ab and c' and then that's all you should
> > > need to calculate time dilation in an equation.
> > > So what is the number when you do that, Mr. Seto?
> > > [time dilation] = ?
>
> > Delta(Tab)= Delta(Taa)*squrt(1-(Vab)^2/c'^2)
>
> Mr. Seto, I don't see numbers that you have put in a calculator to
> come up with a number out.

Hey idiot plug in any number you want for Vab and c' into the equation
to get time dilation.
You are wasting my time.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 21, 8:33 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 11:08 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 3:40 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 19, 7:44 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey idiot...the modified SR math can be used to replace GR math and
> > > > resolves the following problematic observations encountered by GR:
> > > > 1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.
> > > > 2. galactic rotational curve problem.
> > > > 3. Poineer 10 problem.
> > > > 4. the observed horizon problem.
> > > > 5. The observed horizon problem
>
> > > Well then, Mr. Seto, surely you can do this and actually show how the
> > > modified math resolves any one of these issues. So let's pick one --
> > > the Pioneer 10 problem. Do the calculation with your modified math and
> > > show that the Pioneer problem goes away. This is a critical claim you
> > > make about your theory and so it would be important for you to punch
> > > the numbers in to demonstrate that it can do what GR cannot do. GR
> > > expects a different number for Pioneer 10 acceleration than what is
> > > observed. So show the number and the calculation that produces it for
> > > your theory.
>
> > Hey idiot read my paper.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
> Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
> there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
> the above problems go away.

Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.

>There is mention in there of explaining
> the Pioneer anomaly by positing the existence of some particles but
> there is no calculation in that paper of any kind as to how much
> acceleration you would expect from those particles and to show that
> this prediction matches the observed anomalous acceleration of
> Pioneer. So you sent me on a wild goose chase to your own paper which
> did not do what you said it would do.
>
> Then you used foul language and called me names for what you did.
>
> This does not appear to be the behavior of a scientist, Mr. Seto. I

> hope you can understand that.- Hide quoted text -

[ken...@att.net]

On May 21, 9:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    All that is needed to calculate the time dilation of an earth
>    satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude of
>    212 km above MSL, is the mass of the earth and orbital altitude,
>    both easily measured.
>
>    I repeat: *can you or can you not* derive the time dilation of an
>    earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0)
>    at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?

You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
show you how to use your data using IRT.
Vab=1000 m/s
c'=2900000 km/s
If you can't shut the fuck up.

[LaLALa]

On May 21, 9:14 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> Hey idiot plug in any number you want for Vab and c' into the equation
> to get time dilation.
> You are wasting my time.
>

So I gather, Mr. Seto, that you don't want to do the calculations that
scientists do and you want other people to do those calculations. That
is certainly your choice, Mr. Seto, since you clearly don't want to be
a scientist.

[LaLALa]

On May 21, 9:20 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> > Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
> > there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
> > the above problems go away.
>
> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
>

Did he do calculations outside that paper, Mr. Seto? Yes of course he
did. All scientists do. It appears you are looking at one paper and
using that to give you guidance about what you are obligated to do. I
would guess, Mr. Seto, that you do not have much practiced experience
at being a scientist.

[LaLALa]

On May 21, 9:23 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
> show you how to use your data using IRT.
> Vab=1000 m/s
> c'=2900000 km/s
> If you can't shut the fuck up.
>

Mr. Seto, the problem is this. The calculations using GR are all over
the place. They are published in papers complete with numbers and
graphs with applications to specific cases. They are in books complete
with numbers and graphs with application to specific cases. But the
only source of IRT calculations would be you and what you provide. If
you want the results of GR calculations and the details of how to do
them and the numbers and graphs that result you go to the places where
they are. Where would people go to get your calculation details and
numbers and graphs and application to specific examples? There is
none. That is the problem. There just isn't any demonstration of your
theory actually working -- anywhere.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/21/12 9:20 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.

Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
understood Einstein's papers.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/21/12 11:36 AM, PD wrote:
> On May 21, 9:20 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>

>> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
>>
>

> Mr. Seto, if you will look at just one of the papers where he
> publishes about general relativity which you can find here:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity
> you will see that at the end of section 22 he actually calculates some
> numbers including how much in arcseconds light will be deflected
> around the sun and by how much the perihelion of Mercury should be
> found to advance. You will see that there are actual numbers there
> that come from him. This is what all scientists do. You should too.
>
> If you discover that this is all very frustrating to you and that it
> makes you angry to have to calculate numbers then you will end up
> using foul language and calling people names. That is not how
> scientists act, Mr. Seto.

Thank You, PD.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 21, 11:53 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 9:20 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
> > > there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
> > > the above problems go away.
>
> > Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
>
> Did he do calculations outside that paper, Mr. Seto?

What calculations outside that paper?

[ken...@att.net]

On May 21, 11:58 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 9:23 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
> > show you how to use your data using IRT.
> > Vab=1000 m/s
> > c'=2900000 km/s
> > If you can't shut the fuck up.
>
> Mr. Seto, the problem is this. The calculations using GR are all over
> the place.

No idiot....calculations with Vab and c' using GR equations....gee you
are stupid.

[ken...@att.net]

The point is: I don't want to waste time on an idiot like you.

[ken...@att.net]

Hey idiot....derivation is not calculations. In my paper I derive all
my math based on a physical model.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 21, 12:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you calculate the time dilation for a clock at rest in Mars using
GR? Show your caulations.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 21, 12:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey idiot he didn't do any calculations....the value of c was not
defined at that time.

[Sam Wormley]

This is typical of the way Seto concludes a USENET thread. Ken
let me steer you to some good information:

Special Relativity Lecture Notes
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/index.html

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/22/12 8:16 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On May 21, 11:58 am, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:23 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
>>> show you how to use your data using IRT.
>>> Vab=1000 m/s
>>> c'=2900000 km/s
>>> If you can't shut the fuck up.
>>
>> Mr. Seto, the problem is this. The calculations using GR are all over
>> the place.
>
> No idiot....calculations with Vab and c' using GR equations....gee you
> are stupid.

Which of the GR equation did you use, Seto?

[Sam Wormley]

Seto -- You're telling us that calculations using symbols
representing variables and constants are not calculations???

[Sam Wormley]

GR is not required to calculate time dilation for a clock at rest in
Mars! Whatever made you thing GR was an appropriate tool for such a
calculation?

[Sam Wormley]

Wow! No wonder you don't understand relativity, Seto!