Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
21 views
Skip to first unread message
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 10:36:49 AM4/24/12
to
There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
based on the following assumptions:
1. Absolute time exists. A clock second in the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time. The purpose of the SR
time dilation equation is to predict the value on the observed clock
for a second of time (a specific amount of absolute time) on the
observer's clock.
For example: according to SR a clock second on the observer's clock is
worth 1/gamma second on the observed clock. In other words 1/gamma
second on the observed clock contains the same amount of absoute time
as 1 second on the observer's clock.....what this mean is that the
passage of 1/gamma second on the observed clock is corresponded to the
passage of one second on the observer's clock. The observed clock run
slow compared to the observer's clock....but in terms of absolute time
the observer's clock and the observed clock are running at the same
rate.
2. There is no physical length contraction. A meter stick remains the
same physical length in all frames of reference. However the light-
path length of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is predicted to
be shorter than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick by
a factor of 1/gamma. The light-path length of the observer's meter
stick is assumed to be the physical length of his meter stick.
The above assumptions on time and length enabled me to formulate a new
theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT math as a
subset. However unlike the SRT math, the IRT math have an unlimited
domian of applicability, including in a gravity environment. That
means that IRT can be used to replace SR/GR in all applications. A
paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
based on the following assumptions:
1. Absolute time exists. A clock second in the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time. The purpose of the SR
time dilation equation is to predict the value on the observed clock
for a second of time (a specific amount of absolute time) on the
observer's clock.
For example: according to SR a clock second on the observer's clock is
worth 1/gamma second on the observed clock. In other words 1/gamma
second on the observed clock contains the same amount of absoute time
as 1 second on the observer's clock.....what this mean is that the
passage of 1/gamma second on the observed clock is corresponded to the
passage of one second on the observer's clock. The observed clock run
slow compared to the observer's clock....but in terms of absolute time
the observer's clock and the observed clock are running at the same
rate.
2. There is no physical length contraction. A meter stick remains the
same physical length in all frames of reference. However the light-
path length of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is predicted to
be shorter than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick by
a factor of 1/gamma. The light-path length of the observer's meter
stick is assumed to be the physical length of his meter stick.
The above assumptions on time and length enabled me to formulate a new
theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT math as a
subset. However unlike the SRT math, the IRT math have an unlimited
domian of applicability, including in a gravity environment. That
means that IRT can be used to replace SR/GR in all applications. A
paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
Apr 24, 2012, 11:34:35 AM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/12 9:36 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> based on the following assumptions...
> There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
Ken relativistic time dilation is measured everyday. It is observed
in particle accelerators, cosmic muons, distant quasars and
supernovae, GNSS, etc.
Dirk Van de moortel
Apr 24, 2012, 12:21:45 PM4/24/12
to
ken...@att.net <set...@att.net> wrote in message
e228f638-14e8-4054...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
Either
(A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that there
is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
or
(B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
*which are* based on the following assumptions.
Dead on arrival.
But let's visit the factory floor for a while.
Let's take case (A) where
you make the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists", and (2)
that "there is no physical length contraction", and then you conclude
that there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
Congratulations.
Now, let's take case (B) where
there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
*which are* based on the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists",
and (2) that "there is no physical length contraction".
Bravo.
Dead on conception.
Dirk Vdm
e228f638-14e8-4054...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> based on the following assumptions:
Duh, you can't even properly formulate the first sentence.
> based on the following assumptions:
Either
(A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that there
is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
or
(B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
*which are* based on the following assumptions.
Dead on arrival.
But let's visit the factory floor for a while.
Let's take case (A) where
you make the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists", and (2)
that "there is no physical length contraction", and then you conclude
that there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
Congratulations.
Now, let's take case (B) where
there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
*which are* based on the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists",
and (2) that "there is no physical length contraction".
Bravo.
Dead on conception.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 1:06:55 PM4/24/12
to
clock readings on the observed clook for a specific interval of
absolute time in the observer's frame.
Sam Wormley
Apr 24, 2012, 1:18:48 PM4/24/12
to
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 1:24:47 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 12:21 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> e228f638-14e8-4054-b951-582135c90...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> Dead on arrival.
You are dead on arrival. Why? Because you don't have the mental
ability to understand what I said.
>
> But let's visit the factory floor for a while.
>
> Let's take case (A) where
> you make the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists", and (2)
> that "there is no physical length contraction", and then you conclude
> that there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
> Congratulations.
I gave different interval for the observed time dilation in terms of
absolute time. And I gave different interpretation for the SR
prediction of length contraction in terms of light-Path length for a
mvoing meter stick compared to the observer's meter stick. So what is
wrong with that?.
>
> Now, let's take case (B) where
> there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
> *which are* based on the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists",
> and (2) that "there is no physical length contraction".
> Bravo.
Hey idiot every theory have assumptions....SR's assmuptions are its
two postulates. IRT assumptions are that absolute time exists and
light-path length of a meter stick is different in different frames.
What is wrong woth that?
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> e228f638-14e8-4054-b951-582135c90...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> > based on the following assumptions:
>
> Duh, you can't even properly formulate the first sentence.
> Either
> (A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that there
> is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
> or
> (B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
> *which are* based on the following assumptions.
So your arguement is based on play on words???
> > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> > based on the following assumptions:
>
> Duh, you can't even properly formulate the first sentence.
> Either
> (A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that there
> is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
> or
> (B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
> *which are* based on the following assumptions.
>
> Dead on arrival.
You are dead on arrival. Why? Because you don't have the mental
ability to understand what I said.
>
> But let's visit the factory floor for a while.
>
> Let's take case (A) where
> you make the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists", and (2)
> that "there is no physical length contraction", and then you conclude
> that there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
> Congratulations.
absolute time. And I gave different interpretation for the SR
prediction of length contraction in terms of light-Path length for a
mvoing meter stick compared to the observer's meter stick. So what is
wrong with that?.
>
> Now, let's take case (B) where
> there is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction,
> *which are* based on the assumptions that (1) "absolute time exists",
> and (2) that "there is no physical length contraction".
> Bravo.
two postulates. IRT assumptions are that absolute time exists and
light-path length of a meter stick is different in different frames.
What is wrong woth that?
rotchm
Apr 24, 2012, 12:29:27 PM4/24/12
to
> The above assumptions on time and length enabled me to formulate a
new
> theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT math as a
> subset. However unlike the SRT math, the IRT math have an unlimited
> domian of applicability, including in a gravity environment.
Interesting!
new
> theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT math as a
> subset. However unlike the SRT math, the IRT math have an unlimited
> domian of applicability, including in a gravity environment.
There is this group called the NPA (of which I have no affiliation)
that
deal with new and fringe ideas such as yours.
You should present your theory there some time!
Michael Moroney
Apr 24, 2012, 2:16:55 PM4/24/12
to
"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> writes:
>On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 9:36 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>
>> > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
>> > based on the following assumptions...
>>
>> Ken relativistic time dilation is measured everyday. It is observed
>> in particle accelerators, cosmic muons, distant quasars and
>> supernovae, GNSS, etc.
>These are not absolute time dilation....
Well, DUH-H-H! We're talking about the Theory of RELATIVITY, which states
>On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 9:36 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>
>> > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
>> > based on the following assumptions...
>>
>> Ken relativistic time dilation is measured everyday. It is observed
>> in particle accelerators, cosmic muons, distant quasars and
>> supernovae, GNSS, etc.
>These are not absolute time dilation....
different things are relative to each other and not absolute! You need to
understand that for once!
Consider the cosmic muon. We on earth see its time as very dilated, so
much so that many penetrate into the earth, impossible if they decayed
2.2 uS after formation. The 2.2 uS is greatly dilated as far as earth
residents are concerned. Of course the muon doesn't see itself as time
dilated, it sees itself as decaying in 2.2 uS, just as always. Of course
it sees earth as time dilated (and contracted, which is why it can go so
far in 2.2 uS as far as it's concerned). Cool how that works out.
Dirk Van de moortel
Apr 24, 2012, 2:17:45 PM4/24/12
to
b6b65acb-e47c-4488...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
And I didn't do it for you, but for those who think that they can talk
some sense into you. They can't.
> >
> > Dead on arrival.
>
> You are dead on arrival. Why? Because you don't have the mental
> ability to understand what I said.
I'm not even *remotely* interested in *what* you said.
I was analyzing your inability to properly translate your thoughts
into words and sentences, and your utter lack of logic.
Taken together, these are the reasons why you understand
nothing of what people try to tell you, and why nobody has the
faintest idea what you have in mind.
Yes, I don't have the mental ability to understand what you said.
Nobody has the mental ability to understand what you said.
Rational people don't have the mental ability to understand the
thought processes of a palm tree.
Dirk Vdm
> On Apr 24, 12:21 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > e228f638-14e8-4054-b951-582135c90...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> >
> > > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > contraction based on the following assumptions:
> >
> > Duh, you can't even properly formulate the first sentence.
> > Either
> > (A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that there
> > is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
> > or
> > (B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > contraction, *which are* based on the following assumptions.
>
> So your arguement is based on play on words???
I gave no arguments. I exposed your inability te express yourself.
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > e228f638-14e8-4054-b951-582135c90...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> >
> > > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > contraction based on the following assumptions:
> >
> > Duh, you can't even properly formulate the first sentence.
> > Either
> > (A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that there
> > is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
> > or
> > (B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > contraction, *which are* based on the following assumptions.
>
> So your arguement is based on play on words???
And I didn't do it for you, but for those who think that they can talk
some sense into you. They can't.
> >
> > Dead on arrival.
>
> You are dead on arrival. Why? Because you don't have the mental
> ability to understand what I said.
I was analyzing your inability to properly translate your thoughts
into words and sentences, and your utter lack of logic.
Taken together, these are the reasons why you understand
nothing of what people try to tell you, and why nobody has the
faintest idea what you have in mind.
Yes, I don't have the mental ability to understand what you said.
Nobody has the mental ability to understand what you said.
Rational people don't have the mental ability to understand the
thought processes of a palm tree.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 3:41:11 PM4/24/12
to
frame is worth gamma seconds in the lab frame in terms of absolute
time. In other words the passage of one particle second will
correspond to the passage of gamma seconds in the lab frame.
The GPS uses absolute time to synch the PGPS clock with the ground
clock by redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133
radiation than the ground clock. The redefined GPS second contain the
same amount of absolute time as the ground clock second and thus
making the GPS and the ground clock permanently in synch.
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 3:42:59 PM4/24/12
to
PRESENTER.
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 3:49:52 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 2:17 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> b6b65acb-e47c-4488-98e9-3d4587a64...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
THAT'S THE POINT....YOUR CONCCLUSIONS about my theory are based on
your poor mental capacity.
> Nobody has the mental ability to understand what you said.
> Rational people don't have the mental ability to understand the
> thought processes of a palm tree.
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> b6b65acb-e47c-4488-98e9-3d4587a64...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
your poor mental capacity.
> Nobody has the mental ability to understand what you said.
> Rational people don't have the mental ability to understand the
> thought processes of a palm tree.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
Apr 24, 2012, 4:01:37 PM4/24/12
to
5e898b6c-d96d-490b...@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
so no conCClusions are to be made about it.
My --and anyone else's-- poor mental capacity is insufficient to
try to understand the thought processes of a palm tree:
http://knollart.com/images/r_canaryIsland.jpg
Dirk Vdm
> On Apr 24, 2:17 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > b6b65acb-e47c-4488-98e9-3d4587a64...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 24, 12:21 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > > > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > e228f638-14e8-4054-b951-582135c90...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> >
> > > > > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > > > contraction based on the following assumptions:
> >
> > > > Duh, you can't even properly formulate the first sentence.
> > > > Either
> > > > (A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that
> > > > there is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > > contraction. or
> > > > (B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > > contraction, *which are* based on the following assumptions.
> >
> > > So your arguement is based on play on words???
> >
> > I gave no arguments. I exposed your inability to express yourself.
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > b6b65acb-e47c-4488-98e9-3d4587a64...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 24, 12:21 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > > > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > e228f638-14e8-4054-b951-582135c90...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> >
> > > > > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > > > contraction based on the following assumptions:
> >
> > > > Duh, you can't even properly formulate the first sentence.
> > > > Either
> > > > (A) you make the following assumptions, and conclude that
> > > > there is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > > contraction. or
> > > > (B) there is no absolute time dilation or physical length
> > > > contraction, *which are* based on the following assumptions.
> >
> > > So your arguement is based on play on words???
> >
> > And I didn't do it for you, but for those who think that they can
> > talk some sense into you. They can't.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Dead on arrival.
> >
> > > You are dead on arrival. Why? Because you don't have the mental
> > > ability to understand what I said.
> >
> > I'm not even *remotely* interested in *what* you said.
> > I was analyzing your inability to properly translate your thoughts
> > into words and sentences, and your utter lack of logic.
> > Taken together, these are the reasons why you understand
> > nothing of what people try to tell you, and why nobody has the
> > faintest idea what you have in mind.
> >
> > Yes, I don't have the mental ability to understand what you said.
>
> THAT'S THE POINT....YOUR CONCCLUSIONS about my theory are based on
> your poor mental capacity.
I didn't even *look* at your theory, nor am I interested in it,
> > talk some sense into you. They can't.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Dead on arrival.
> >
> > > You are dead on arrival. Why? Because you don't have the mental
> > > ability to understand what I said.
> >
> > I'm not even *remotely* interested in *what* you said.
> > I was analyzing your inability to properly translate your thoughts
> > into words and sentences, and your utter lack of logic.
> > Taken together, these are the reasons why you understand
> > nothing of what people try to tell you, and why nobody has the
> > faintest idea what you have in mind.
> >
> > Yes, I don't have the mental ability to understand what you said.
>
> THAT'S THE POINT....YOUR CONCCLUSIONS about my theory are based on
> your poor mental capacity.
so no conCClusions are to be made about it.
My --and anyone else's-- poor mental capacity is insufficient to
try to understand the thought processes of a palm tree:
http://knollart.com/images/r_canaryIsland.jpg
Dirk Vdm
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 4:09:26 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 4:01 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> 5e898b6c-d96d-490b-8545-736f621a6...@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
You are a lying sack of shit.
> so no conCClusions are to be made about it.
> My --and anyone else's-- poor mental capacity is insufficient to
> try to understand the thought processes of a palm tree:
> http://knollart.com/images/r_canaryIsland.jpg
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Nobody has the mental ability to understand what you said.
> > > Rational people don't have the mental ability to understand the
> > > thought processes of a palm tree.
>
> > > Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> 5e898b6c-d96d-490b-8545-736f621a6...@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
> so no conCClusions are to be made about it.
> My --and anyone else's-- poor mental capacity is insufficient to
> try to understand the thought processes of a palm tree:
> http://knollart.com/images/r_canaryIsland.jpg
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Nobody has the mental ability to understand what you said.
> > > Rational people don't have the mental ability to understand the
> > > thought processes of a palm tree.
>
> > > Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 4:06:01 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 2:16 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
>
> Consider the cosmic muon. We on earth see its time as very dilated, so
> much so that many penetrate into the earth, impossible if they decayed
> 2.2 uS after formation.
Hey idiot 2.2us on the comic muon frame contains the same amount of
absolute time as gamma*2.2 us in the lab frmae. That's why the cosmic
muon is able to REACH THE GROUND BEFORE DECAYING.
>The 2.2 uS is greatly dilated as far as earth
> residents are concerned.
No idiot in terms of absolute time 2.2us in the particle frame
contains the same amount of absolute time as gamma*2.2 us in the lab
frame.
>Of course the muon doesn't see itself as time
> dilated, it sees itself as decaying in 2.2 uS, just as always.
According to IRT the muon obswerver will predict the earth clock run
fast by a factor of gamma.
> Of course
> it sees earth as time dilated (and contracted, which is why it can go so
> far in 2.2 uS as far as it's concerned). Cool how that works out.
No idiot....if the earth time is dilated the muon will not be able to
reach the ground. The 2.2 us in the muon frame is wor gthamma*2.2 us
on the lab clock in terms of absolute time. That's why the muon
observer will predict that it is able to reach the ground before
decaying.
wrote:
> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> writes:
> >On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/24/12 9:36 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> >> > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> >> > based on the following assumptions...
>
> >> Ken relativistic time dilation is measured everyday. It is observed
> >> in particle accelerators, cosmic muons, distant quasars and
> >> supernovae, GNSS, etc.
> >These are not absolute time dilation....
>
> Well, DUH-H-H! We're talking about the Theory of RELATIVITY, which states
> different things are relative to each other and not absolute! You need to
> understand that for once!
Hey idiot I too was talking about the theory of relativity.
> >On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/24/12 9:36 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> >> > There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> >> > based on the following assumptions...
>
> >> Ken relativistic time dilation is measured everyday. It is observed
> >> in particle accelerators, cosmic muons, distant quasars and
> >> supernovae, GNSS, etc.
> >These are not absolute time dilation....
>
> Well, DUH-H-H! We're talking about the Theory of RELATIVITY, which states
> different things are relative to each other and not absolute! You need to
> understand that for once!
>
> Consider the cosmic muon. We on earth see its time as very dilated, so
> much so that many penetrate into the earth, impossible if they decayed
> 2.2 uS after formation.
absolute time as gamma*2.2 us in the lab frmae. That's why the cosmic
muon is able to REACH THE GROUND BEFORE DECAYING.
>The 2.2 uS is greatly dilated as far as earth
> residents are concerned.
contains the same amount of absolute time as gamma*2.2 us in the lab
frame.
>Of course the muon doesn't see itself as time
> dilated, it sees itself as decaying in 2.2 uS, just as always.
fast by a factor of gamma.
> Of course
> it sees earth as time dilated (and contracted, which is why it can go so
> far in 2.2 uS as far as it's concerned). Cool how that works out.
reach the ground. The 2.2 us in the muon frame is wor gthamma*2.2 us
on the lab clock in terms of absolute time. That's why the muon
observer will predict that it is able to reach the ground before
decaying.
Sam Wormley
Apr 24, 2012, 4:19:40 PM4/24/12
to
the twisted and contradicting constructs you create in your
untutored mind.
Try: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/index.html
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 4:46:10 PM4/24/12
to
applicability. This means that SRT is an incomplete theory. IRT is a
complete theory. Its equations are valid in all environments,
including gravity. That's why IRT can be use to replace SR/GR in all
applications.
>
> Try:http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/index.html- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
Apr 24, 2012, 5:13:49 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/12 3:46 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> My dear wormy.....SR is so simple that it has a limited domain of
> applicability. This means that SRT is an incomplete theory. IRT is a
> complete theory. Its equations are valid in all environments,
> including gravity. That's why IRT can be use to replace SR/GR in all
> applications.
>
Is anybody making use of this theory? If not, why not?
> My dear wormy.....SR is so simple that it has a limited domain of
> applicability. This means that SRT is an incomplete theory. IRT is a
> complete theory. Its equations are valid in all environments,
> including gravity. That's why IRT can be use to replace SR/GR in all
> applications.
>
waldofj
Apr 24, 2012, 5:49:41 PM4/24/12
to
here. He buries his head in the sand and what he doesn't see he can
pretend doesn't exist!
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 6:36:56 PM4/24/12
to
have the purse of the government to use it.
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 6:38:48 PM4/24/12
to
papa...@gmail.com
Apr 24, 2012, 7:28:13 PM4/24/12
to
"new theory". That is too funny.
Why are you unable to explain the following simple diagram, explaining
the relativity of simultaneity?
* 0.5333c
* |
* |
ct * |
|* M'0.3333c
*|* |
* | * |
* | * |
* | * |
* | * 0.1333c
*__________|________|_*__ x
A |M H1 B
xxein
Apr 24, 2012, 8:19:04 PM4/24/12
to
xxein
Apr 24, 2012, 8:42:12 PM4/24/12
to
>
> > - Show quoted text -
xxein: You are not so stupid. But you are nowhere being close to
> > - Show quoted text -
being smart.
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 10:09:43 PM4/24/12
to
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 10:08:02 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 8:42 pm, xxein <xx...@att.net> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:46 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 4:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My dear wormy.....SR is so simple that it has a limited domain of
> > applicability. This means that SRT is an incomplete theory. IRT is a
> > complete theory. Its equations are valid in all environments,
> > including gravity. That's why IRT can be use to replace SR/GR in all
> > applications.
>
> > > Try:http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/index.html-Hidequoted text -
> On Apr 24, 4:46 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 4:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My dear wormy.....SR is so simple that it has a limited domain of
> > applicability. This means that SRT is an incomplete theory. IRT is a
> > complete theory. Its equations are valid in all environments,
> > including gravity. That's why IRT can be use to replace SR/GR in all
> > applications.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> xxein: You are not so stupid. But you are nowhere being close to
> being smart.
Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> xxein: You are not so stupid. But you are nowhere being close to
> being smart.
ken...@att.net
Apr 24, 2012, 10:13:31 PM4/24/12
to
RoS.
>
> Why are you unable to explain the following simple diagram, explaining
> the relativity of simultaneity?
>
> * 0.5333c
> * |
> * |
> ct * |
> |* M'0.3333c
> *|* |
> * | * |
> * | * |
> * | * |
> * | * 0.1333c
> *__________|________|_*__ x
Hey idiot this got nothing to do with Einstein's gedanken to get RoS.
M and M' are coincide with each other when the light flashes occur
simultaneously. Gee you are stupid.
Sam Wormley
Apr 24, 2012, 10:23:57 PM4/24/12
to
Dirk Van de moortel
Apr 25, 2012, 4:44:32 AM4/25/12
to
Dirk Vdm
ken...@att.net
Apr 25, 2012, 9:23:11 AM4/25/12
to
1. They think that SR is a religion.
2. They don't want to be embarrassed.
3. Their ego don't allow them.
4. They don't want to destroy the SR gravy train.
5. etc
Sam Wormley
Apr 25, 2012, 11:24:41 AM4/25/12
to
[ ] that scientist don't understand special relativity, treating
it as religious dogma, and enjoying the special relativity
gravy train
[ ] Seto doesn't understand special relativity and claims that
scientists are wrong without any justification
rotchm
Apr 25, 2012, 11:38:19 AM4/25/12
to
> Which is more likely....
>
> [ ] that scientist don't understand special relativity, treating
> it as religious dogma, and enjoying the special relativity
> gravy train
This is true ~ 95% of the time.
>
> [ ] that scientist don't understand special relativity, treating
> it as religious dogma, and enjoying the special relativity
> gravy train
> [ ] Seto doesn't understand special relativity and claims that
> scientists are wrong without any justification
ken...@att.net
Apr 25, 2012, 4:43:12 PM4/25/12
to
constant OWLS and bogus concept of RoS to make it logical.
Yes they do enjoy the SR gravy train and that's why they reject any
theory that threatens SR.
>
> [ ] Seto doesn't understand special relativity and claims that
Seto understandnd SR 100% and that's why he was able to formulate IRT.
IRT is a complete theory of relativity. IRT math includes SR math as
subset. However, unlike the math of SRT the IRT math have unlimited
domain of applicability. Therefore it is valid for use to replace SR/
GR in all applications.
YBM
Apr 25, 2012, 8:03:46 PM4/25/12
to
Le 25.04.2012 22:43, ken...@att.net a écrit :
>> [ ] Seto doesn't understand special relativity and claims that
>> scientists are wrong without any justification- Hide quoted text -
>
> Seto understandnd SR 100%
Come on Ken... You don't even understand coordinates!
>> [ ] Seto doesn't understand special relativity and claims that
>> scientists are wrong without any justification- Hide quoted text -
>
> Seto understandnd SR 100%
Michael Moroney
Apr 26, 2012, 1:20:55 AM4/26/12
to
"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> writes:
>> xxein: You are not so stupid. But you are nowhere being close to
>> being smart.
>Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
Yet you don't understand the basics of SR. You don't even understand
>> xxein: You are not so stupid. But you are nowhere being close to
>> being smart.
>Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
coordinates.
ken...@att.net
Apr 26, 2012, 8:10:52 AM4/26/12
to
Sam Wormley
Apr 26, 2012, 8:53:42 AM4/26/12
to
On 4/24/12 9:08 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
You don't even understand concepts of motion, Seto!
>
> Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
ken...@att.net
Apr 26, 2012, 9:12:27 AM4/26/12
to
the vector difference of their absolute motions. Gee you are so stupid.
ken...@att.net
Apr 26, 2012, 9:13:28 AM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26, 1:20 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Yet you don't understand the basis of relative motion.
wrote:
YBM
Apr 26, 2012, 9:17:02 AM4/26/12
to
family. They'll be ashamed for generations for all the crap you've
posted on Usenet.
Sam Wormley
Apr 26, 2012, 12:30:18 PM4/26/12
to
of the building from which Pound and Rebka conducted their famous
experiment.
Chose one or the other as the origin of an inertial frame coordinate
system. This is an important step you often misunderstand, Seto!
The displacement vector, s, between T and B has magnitude and
direction. Note that v = ds/dt = zero and there *is no relative
motion* between T and B. End of story.
ken...@att.net
Apr 26, 2012, 4:57:13 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/26/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 8:53 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/24/12 9:08 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> >>> Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
>
> >> You don't even understand concepts of motion, Seto!
>
> > ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Relative motion between two objects is
> > the vector difference of their absolute motions. Gee you are so stupid.
>
> Seto consider two points, T and B representing the top and bottom
> of the building from which Pound and Rebka conducted their famous
> experiment.
>
> Chose one or the other as the origin of an inertial frame coordinate
> system. This is an important step you often misunderstand, Seto!
No this is not an important step. The important step is to measure the
> On 4/26/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 8:53 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/24/12 9:08 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> >>> Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
>
> >> You don't even understand concepts of motion, Seto!
>
> > ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Relative motion between two objects is
> > the vector difference of their absolute motions. Gee you are so stupid.
>
> Seto consider two points, T and B representing the top and bottom
> of the building from which Pound and Rebka conducted their famous
> experiment.
>
> Chose one or the other as the origin of an inertial frame coordinate
> system. This is an important step you often misunderstand, Seto!
frequency of the distant source. If there is a difference between the
incoming light than the frequency of the observer's identical source
then there is relative motion between them.
YBM
Apr 26, 2012, 5:09:30 PM4/26/12
to
Le 26.04.2012 22:57, ken...@att.net a écrit :
> On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/26/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 26, 8:53 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/12 9:08 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>>>> Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
>>
>>>> You don't even understand concepts of motion, Seto!
>>
>>> ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Relative motion between two objects is
>>> the vector difference of their absolute motions. Gee you are so stupid.
>>
>> Seto consider two points, T and B representing the top and bottom
>> of the building from which Pound and Rebka conducted their famous
>> experiment.
>>
>> Chose one or the other as the origin of an inertial frame coordinate
>> system. This is an important step you often misunderstand, Seto!
>
> No this is not an important step. The important step is to measure the
> frequency of the distant source. If there is a difference between the
> incoming light than the frequency of the observer's identical source
> then there is relative motion between them.
motion without motion... You're a desperate senile deluded crank Ken...
> On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/26/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 26, 8:53 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/12 9:08 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>>>> Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.
>>
>>>> You don't even understand concepts of motion, Seto!
>>
>>> ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Relative motion between two objects is
>>> the vector difference of their absolute motions. Gee you are so stupid.
>>
>> Seto consider two points, T and B representing the top and bottom
>> of the building from which Pound and Rebka conducted their famous
>> experiment.
>>
>> Chose one or the other as the origin of an inertial frame coordinate
>> system. This is an important step you often misunderstand, Seto!
>
> No this is not an important step. The important step is to measure the
> frequency of the distant source. If there is a difference between the
> incoming light than the frequency of the observer's identical source
> then there is relative motion between them.
rotchm
Apr 26, 2012, 5:30:51 PM4/26/12
to
> The important step is to measure the
> frequency of the distant source.
ken...@att.net
Apr 26, 2012, 10:45:53 PM4/26/12
to
is motion. You are so fucking stupid.
- Hide quoted text -
ken...@att.net
Apr 26, 2012, 10:48:04 PM4/26/12
to
then there is relative motion between the source and the receiver.
rotchm
Apr 26, 2012, 11:53:23 PM4/26/12
to
> Frequency of the source and the receiver. If there is any difference
> then there is relative motion between the source and the receiver.
gedanken:
An ET lives in a tall building on a interstellar rogue massive planet.
He notes that the stars never rotate in his nightly views; they always
remain at the same position. Is he rotating? Does he have motion? Is
there a difference in frequencies of the received signals from Top of
building and the Bottom?
ken...@att.net
Apr 27, 2012, 9:14:06 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26, 11:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Frequency of the source and the receiver. If there is any difference
> > then there is relative motion between the source and the receiver.
>
> Many (as I) would disagree with that. As an example, consider this
> gedanken:
That's because you conclusion is based on the bogus assertion that the
> > Frequency of the source and the receiver. If there is any difference
> > then there is relative motion between the source and the receiver.
>
> Many (as I) would disagree with that. As an example, consider this
> gedanken:
top anf bottom of the building are at rest wrt each other.
>
> An ET lives in a tall building on a interstellar rogue massive planet.
> He notes that the stars never rotate in his nightly views; they always
> remain at the same position. Is he rotating? Does he have motion? Is
> there a difference in frequencies of the received signals from Top of
> building and the Bottom?
frequency then there is motion between the source and the receiver.
Bruce Richmond
Apr 27, 2012, 10:37:36 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 24, 10:36 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> based on the following assumptions:
[snip]
> There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction
> based on the following assumptions:
Ken, you are a waste of space. When every argument you can make has
been shot down you just start a new thread and prtend you have new
arguments. You can die stupid for all I care.
rotchm
Apr 27, 2012, 12:18:07 PM4/27/12
to
> > An ET lives in a tall building on a interstellar rogue massive planet.
> > He notes that the stars never rotate in his nightly views; they always
> > remain at the same position. Is he rotating? Does he have motion? Is
> > there a difference in frequencies of the received signals from Top of
> > building and the Bottom?
>
> Sigh....if there is a difference in source frequency and receiving
> frequency then there is motion between the source and the receiver.
But even in your theory/model, for the above example, the source and
> > He notes that the stars never rotate in his nightly views; they always
> > remain at the same position. Is he rotating? Does he have motion? Is
> > there a difference in frequencies of the received signals from Top of
> > building and the Bottom?
>
> Sigh....if there is a difference in source frequency and receiving
> frequency then there is motion between the source and the receiver.
receiver do not move in the "E-marix". They are both fixed in the E-
matrix and yet the received frequency is different from the source's.
So, they are fixed in the E-matrix but in motion in the E-matrix !??
ken...@att.net
Apr 28, 2012, 9:01:51 AM4/28/12
to
E-Matrix. You arte desacribing a situation that does not exist in my
theory.
ken...@att.net
Apr 28, 2012, 9:05:55 AM4/28/12
to
rotchm
Apr 28, 2012, 4:00:08 PM4/28/12
to
> Sigh....in my theory all the objects in the universe are moving in the
> E-Matrix. You arte desacribing a situation that does not exist in my
> theory.
Liar. You dont even understand your own crackpot theory. In your e-
> E-Matrix. You arte desacribing a situation that does not exist in my
> theory.
matrix, there can/are objects at rest wrt it. How do you quantify
"motion" in your theory? Do objects have speeds? Can this peed be 0.5
m/s?
Can some have speeds 0.1 m/s?
0 new messages