Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.physics.relativity
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Absolute Time
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
kenseto  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 11:51 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: kenseto <seto...@att.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 11:51 am
Subject: Re: Absolute Time
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:58:44 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote:

> > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:10:23 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:

> >> On 10/2/2012 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote:

> >> Despite the fact that IRT says certain things can happen that SRT says

> >> absolutely cannot happen. By including SRT as a subset, IRT thereby

> >> becomes internally contradictory.

> > That's the point what SR says is wrong and IRT interpretation

> > corrected the wrongs.

> So it cannot contain SRT as a subset. What it means to contain SRT as a

> subset is to say that all the statements of SRT are correct and IN

> ADDITION there are other statements that IRT makes that are correct that

> SRT says nothing about.

Sigh...SR is a subset of IRT because it only predict
that an observed clock is running slow. In real life
an observed clock can run slow or fast compared to
the observer's clock.
What SR said is irrelevant.

> But you cannot say that SRT is contained as a subset AND say that its

> statements are wrong. That is a self-contradictory statement.

What SR said is irrelevant. What SR predicts is incomplete and IRT
includes SRT predictions and with additional predictions to make
it agree with all observations. That's why SRT is a subset of IRT.

> >>> However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are

> >>> valid in all environments, including gravity.

> >> Ah, so you mean like the equations of general relativity, which are

> >> valid in all environments, including gravity.

> > No....IRT uses different approach to get the same answer.

> IRT doesn't get the same answers. You can't calculate anything in IRT

> that you can calculate in GR. You've never ONCE demonstrated that IRT

> can produce a calculated result that is identical to a result calculated

> with GR.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google