How SR Commits Hara-Kiri (Suicide)
kenseto
and B in relative motion:
1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
3. A and B run at the same rate.
Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
The PoR of SR asserts that all inertial frames (including the
preferred frame) are equivalent and that every SR observer can choose
any frame to do physics. Every SR observer chooses the preferred frame
to do phyiscs because it is the simplest frame to do physics. The
preferred frame has the following unique properties:
All the clocks moving wrt a preferred observer are predicts to run
slow compared to the preferred observer's clock.
This means that SR observer A claims (predicts) that B runs slow and
at the same time SR observer B claims (predicts) that A runs slow.
This is known as the SR concept of mutual time dilation.
As you can see the SR concept of mutual time dilation violates the
rules of our universe when comparing two clocks A and B in relative
motion. This means that SR is self contradictory or SR committed Hara-
Kiri (suicide).
A new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)
avoids the contradictory claim of mutual time dilation. Every IRT
observer claims (predicts) that an observed clock can run slow or fast
compared to his clock as follows:
The observed clock runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
The observed clock runs fast by a factor of gamma.
Only one of these predictions of IRT is correct.
A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Also visit my website for more papers on my theory:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> and B in relative motion:
> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
Gibberish from you as usual, Seto!
Let ∆t be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame
of some clock. Let ∆t' be that clock's time interval as
measured by an observer.
Then it follow that from the Observers Perspective:
∆t' = γ ∆t
Where v is the relative velocity between the clock and
observer and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) .
Tom Roberts
> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> and B in relative motion:
> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
This is simply not true, once one understands how the rate of a moving clock is
measured. Since the two measurements are of DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, there is a
possibility number 4:
4. Clocks at rest in inertial frame A are measured in inertial frame B to
run slower than clocks at rest in frame B, and clocks at rest in frame
B are measured in frame A to run slower than clocks at rest in frame A.
Note that the two frames being inertial is ESSENTIAL for this. As is the usual
measurement procedure for measuring the rate of a moving clock: clocks
synchronized in the measuring inertial frame are pre-positioned along the path
of the moving clock; as the moving clock passes each of them, the times on both
clocks are recorded, and the measured rate of the moving clock is computed from
the collected records after the measurement is over.
But kenseto has not understood this in over a decade of posting nonsense to this
newsgroup.
The "mutual time dilation" of SR is a logical and necessary aspect of the
theory. No contradiction is present. The contradiction is PURELY in kenseto's
ERRONEOUS GUESSES about what SR actually says.
Tom Roberts
hanson
Happy 2011 to you 2 guys... ahahahahahaha...
>
So, Tom, look at your Re-line. It says "Hoe kenseto"
.... ahahahahaha...
Did Ken crank you that bad that you have to label
him as a whore?... ahahahahaha... If so then you are
not any better because that makes you being a Pimp
for Einstein and his whoring Dingleberries.... ahaha...
>
Thanks for the laughs!.. What's in it for you, Tom?
ahahahahaha.... ahahahahahanson
>
>
Ken, keep up your good work. It keeps the Einstein
Dingleberries exposed to the cold world of reality...
Carry on... ahahahahahanson
>
------------------------
>
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:b-qdnVR9yr3...@giganews.com...
Androcles
| > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
| > and B in relative motion:
| > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
| > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
| > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
| > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
| > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
|
| This is simply not true,
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.
480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant, the velocity of
light in empty space." --§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity --
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity"--§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
--ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.
kenseto
> On 1/3/11 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > and B in relative motion:
> > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> This is simply not true, once one understands how the rate of a moving clock is
> measured.
Only a fool would say that this is not true....These are the only
rules when comparing two clocks in our universe.
>Since the two measurements are of DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, there is a
> possibility number 4:
>
> 4. Clocks at rest in inertial frame A are measured in inertial frame B to
> run slower than clocks at rest in frame B, and clocks at rest in frame
> B are measured in frame A to run slower than clocks at rest in frame A.
This possibility does not exist in our universe. Also no such
measurement ever been made...in fact it is impossible to do so. What
you are saying is that the math of SR says: A predicts B runs slow and
that B predicts A runs slow...need I remind you that prediction is not
measurement.
>
> Note that the two frames being inertial is ESSENTIAL for this.
No object in our universe is in a state of inertial motion.
>As is the usual
> measurement procedure for measuring the rate of a moving clock: clocks
> synchronized in the measuring inertial frame are pre-positioned along the path
> of the moving clock; as the moving clock passes each of them, the times on both
> clocks are recorded, and the measured rate of the moving clock is computed from
> the collected records after the measurement is over.
No such measurements ever been made....in fact it is impossible to do
so. Also there are only two clocks: A and B. SR math says that A
predicts B runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma and that B predicts that A
runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma. Only one of these SR prediction is
correct...the other prediction violate the rules of comparing two
clocks. That's why I said that SR commits Hara-Kiri.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
> SR math says that A
> predicts B runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma and that B predicts that A
> runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
Yes this is correct.
Let t be the time rate in the inertial frame of some clock.
Let t' be the time rate of that clock as measured by an observer.
Correcting for Doppler Effects,
Then it follow that from the Observers Perspective:
∆' = 1/γ t
wugi
> On Jan 3, 1:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/3/11 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
>>> and B in relative motion:
>>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
You must specify in which system.
>>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
You must specify in which system.
>>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
You must specify in which system.
>>> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
>>> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
You must specify in which system.
You're about to mess up statements of different systems...
>> This is simply not true, once one understands how the rate of a
>> moving clock is measured.
>
> Only a fool would say that this is not true....These are the only
> rules when comparing two clocks in our universe.
You're messing up conclusions of different systems.
>> Since the two measurements are of DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, there is a
>> possibility number 4:
>>
>> 4. Clocks at rest in inertial frame A are measured in inertial frame
>> B to
>> run slower than clocks at rest in frame B, and clocks at rest in
>> frame
>> B are measured in frame A to run slower than clocks at rest in frame
>> A.
>
> This possibility does not exist in our universe. Also no such (...)
Correction: not in your universe, perhaps. It's valid in Einstein's, our, in
short, *the* universe :-o)
It's rather basic math actually, and readily "seen" in a graphic display,
eg:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/LorentzObjects.PNG
more on my page
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
Sam Wormley
> that B predicts A runs slow
Yes this is correct.
Let t be the time rate in the inertial frame of some clock.
Let t' be the time rate of that clock as measured by an observer.
Correcting for Doppler Effects,
Then it follow that from the Observers Perspective:
t' = 1/γ t
Androcles
"wugi" <wugi...@scarlet.be> wrote in message
news:iftikt$c5e$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
You are messing up.
In fact you are just plain fucked up.
Michael Moroney
>In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
>and B in relative motion:
>1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>3. A and B run at the same rate.
>Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
>clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
You can't just make up some rules and then demand that the universe must
play by your made-up rules, Ken. Physics doesn't work like that.
The real laws of physics don't care about the rules you made up for
it, the real laws get followed regardless of what you do or don't want.
kenseto
Hey idiot this is what violated the rules when comparing two clocks.
Are you really that stupid???
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 1:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/3/11 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> >>> and B in relative motion:
> >>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>
> You must specify in which system.
This rule applies in any system.
>
> >>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>
> You must specify in which system.
This rule applies in any system.
>
> >>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>
> You must specify in which system.
This rule applies in any system.
>
> >>> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> >>> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> You must specify in which system.
> You're about to mess up statements of different systems...
This rule applies in any system.
>
> >> This is simply not true, once one understands how the rate of a
> >> moving clock is measured.
>
> > Only a fool would say that this is not true....These are the only
> > rules when comparing two clocks in our universe.
>
> You're messing up conclusions of different systems.
No the rules apply to any system.
>
> >> Since the two measurements are of DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, there is a
> >> possibility number 4:
>
> >> 4. Clocks at rest in inertial frame A are measured in inertial frame
> >> B to
> >> run slower than clocks at rest in frame B, and clocks at rest in
> >> frame
> >> B are measured in frame A to run slower than clocks at rest in frame
> >> A.
>
> > This possibility does not exist in our universe. Also no such (...)
>
> Correction: not in your universe, perhaps. It's valid in Einstein's, our, in
> short, *the* universe :-o)
Einstein's universe is based on incorrect assumptions.
>
> It's rather basic math actually, and readily "seen" in a graphic display,
Math cannot over rule what happen when comparing the rates of two
clocks.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On 1/3/11 2:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > SR says: A predicts B runs slow and
> > that B predicts A runs slow
>
> Yes this is correct.
Hey idiot that's what violates the rules of the universe when
comparing the rates of two clocks.
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 3, 5:33 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/3/11 2:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> SR says: A predicts B runs slow and
>>> that B predicts A runs slow
>>
>> Yes this is correct.
>
> Hey idiot that's what violates the rules of the universe when
> comparing the rates of two clocks.
Rules of the universe? You gotta be kidding us, Seto. The rules
are determined by the results of observation and experiment.
Special relativity is one of the rules.
PD
> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> and B in relative motion:
> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
kenseto
> On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > and B in relative motion:
> > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
Hey idiot professor...there is no exception to those rules when
comaring two clocks in our universe.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > The PoR of SR asserts that all inertial frames (including the
> > preferred frame) are equivalent and that every SR observer can choose
> > any frame to do physics. Every SR observer chooses the preferred frame
> > to do phyiscs because it is the simplest frame to do physics. The
> > preferred frame has the following unique properties:
> > All the clocks moving wrt a preferred observer are predicts to run
> > slow compared to the preferred observer's clock.
> > This means that SR observer A claims (predicts) that B runs slow and
> > at the same time SR observer B claims (predicts) that A runs slow.
> > This is known as the SR concept of mutual time dilation.
>
> > As you can see the SR concept of mutual time dilation violates the
> > rules of our universe when comparing two clocks A and B in relative
> > motion. This means that SR is self contradictory or SR committed Hara-
> > Kiri (suicide).
>
> > A new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)
> > avoids the contradictory claim of mutual time dilation. Every IRT
> > observer claims (predicts) that an observed clock can run slow or fast
> > compared to his clock as follows:
> > The observed clock runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
> > The observed clock runs fast by a factor of gamma.
> > Only one of these predictions of IRT is correct.
> > A paper on IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > Also visit my website for more papers on my theory:http://www.modelmechanics.org/
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
> On Jan 4, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > and B in relative motion:
> > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> > does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
>
> Hey idiot professor...there is no exception to those rules when
> comaring two clocks in our universe.
You don't get to make that call, Ken. You're not God, you don't write
the rules.
Nature does things that are surprising, as discovered in experiment --
even things you think are impossible. Get used to it.
Sam Wormley
No, but you appear to not understand relativity and the fact that
there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction of
relativity. Seto, learn relativity! The universe IS NOT the way you
want it to be.
kenseto
> On 1/4/11 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 5:33 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/3/11 2:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> SR says: A predicts B runs slow and
> >>> that B predicts A runs slow
>
> >> Yes this is correct.
>
> > Hey idiot that's what violates the rules of the universe when
> > comparing the rates of two clocks.
>
> Rules of the universe? You gotta be kidding us, Seto. The rules
> are determined by the results of observation and experiment.
> Special relativity is one of the rules.
No idiot...those are the rules when comparing the rates of two clocks.
SR prediction is not a rule. You are so stupid.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Let t be the time rate in the inertial frame of some clock.
> >> Let t' be the time rate of that clock as measured by an observer.
> >> Correcting for Doppler Effects,
>
> >> Then it follow that from the Observers Perspective:
> >> t' = 1/γ t
>
> >> Where v is the relative velocity between the clock and
> >> observer and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) .- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 4, 9:50 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/4/11 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 5:33 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/11 2:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>>> SR says: A predicts B runs slow and
>>>>> that B predicts A runs slow
>>
>>>> Yes this is correct.
>>
>>> Hey idiot that's what violates the rules of the universe when
>>> comparing the rates of two clocks.
>>
>> Rules of the universe? You gotta be kidding us, Seto. The rules
>> are determined by the results of observation and experiment.
>> Special relativity is one of the rules.
>
> No idiot...those are the rules when comparing the rates of two clocks.
> SR prediction is not a rule. You are so stupid.
>
> Ken Seto
Special relativity is not about comparisons, Seto. Special relativity
is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference
proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein.
Time dilation of clocks is one of special relativity's verified
predictions.
For example, let ∆t be an interval of proper time in the inertial
frame of some clock. Let ∆t' be that clock's time interval as
measured by an observer.
Then it follow that from an Observers Perspective, that
∆t' = γ ∆t
wugi
>>>>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>>
>> You must specify in which system.
>
> This rule applies in any system.
True enough, by itself.
>>>>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>>
>> You must specify in which system.
>
> This rule applies in any system.
True enough, by itself.
>>>>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>>
>> You must specify in which system.
>
> This rule applies in any system.
True enough, by itself.
>>>>> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
>>>>> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>>
>> You must specify in which system.
>> You're about to mess up statements of different systems...
>
> This rule applies in any system.
Here's where you mess up.
1. and 2. are true by themselves.
They DON'T exclude each other, actually 1. is true in system A and 2. is
true in system B.
>>>> This is simply not true, once one understands how the rate of a
>>>> moving clock is measured.
>>
>>> Only a fool would say that this is not true....These are the only
>>> rules when comparing two clocks in our universe.
>>
>> You're messing up conclusions of different systems.
>
> No the rules apply to any system.
AND they don't exclude each other, depending on which system...
>>>> Since the two measurements are of DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, there is a
>>>> possibility number 4:
>>
>>>> 4. Clocks at rest in inertial frame A are measured in inertial
>>>> frame B to
>>>> run slower than clocks at rest in frame B, and clocks at rest in
>>>> frame
>>>> B are measured in frame A to run slower than clocks at rest in
>>>> frame A.
>>
>>> This possibility does not exist in our universe. Also no such (...)
>>
>> Correction: not in your universe, perhaps. It's valid in Einstein's,
>> our, in short, *the* universe :-o)
>
> Einstein's universe is based on incorrect assumptions.
Correction: yours is.
>> It's rather basic math actually, and readily "seen" in a graphic
>> display,
>
> Math cannot over rule what happen when comparing the rates of two
> clocks.
Neither can misunderstanding it.
Inertial
news:30038ab7-9f80-429b...@g26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
>and B in relative motion:
>1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
Of course that is the case, for any given observer
>2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
Of course that is the case, for any given observer
> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
Of course that is the case, for a given observer
They are the only three possibilities, for any given observer
>Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
>clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
That's right, for any given observer
But that does not mean the one observer cannot measure A as faster then B,
and another measure A as slower than B
> The PoR of SR asserts that all inertial frames (including the
> preferred frame)
There is no preferred frame .. that's the whole point of the PoR
> are equivalent and that every SR observer can choose
> any frame to do physics.
What do you mean 'do physics' ?
> Every SR observer chooses the preferred frame
> to do physics
There is no preferred frame ,, so your statement is nonsense
> because it is the simplest frame to do physics.
There is no preferred frame ,, so your statement is nonsense
>The
>preferred frame has the following unique properties:
There is no preferred frame ,, so your statement is nonsense
>All the clocks moving wrt a preferred observer are predicts to run
>slow compared to the preferred observer's clock.
That is the case for all inertial frames, so by definition that property is
no unique.
>This means that SR observer A claims (predicts) that B runs slow
it is a prediction of what would be measured
> and
>at the same time SR observer B claims (predicts) that A runs slow.
it is a prediction of what would be measured
>This is known as the SR concept of mutual time dilation.
Yeup
>As you can see the SR concept of mutual time dilation violates the
>rules of our universe when comparing two clocks A and B in relative
>motion.
No .. it doesn't. There are no such rules to break. There is no rule that
says all observers must measure the same relationship between pairs of
differently moving clocks.
> This means that SR is self contradictory
No .. it isn't
> or SR committed Hara-
> Kiri (suicide).
Bahaha
[snip nonsense about refuted non-theory .. only visit ken's site if you want
a good laugh at his idiocy and lack of thought and logic]
Inertial
>
>On Jan 3, 5:30 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>> > On Jan 3, 1:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> On 1/3/11 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> >>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>> You must specify in which system.
>This rule applies in any system.
>> >>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>> You must specify in which system.
>This rule applies in any system.
>> >>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>> You must specify in which system.
>This rule applies in any system.
That's right. Pick any system and either 1, 2 or 3 applies.
That does NOT mean that *different* systems will agree on the comparison of
A and B
This is analogous to the fact that in any system either 1) X has a faster
speed than Y, or 2) Y has a faster speed than X, or 3) X and Y have the same
speed. However, different systems will get different results for which
object is faster.
You really need to think more and write less.
Inertial
However, he is quite correct that they are the only possible answers for any
single comparison of two clock rates (ie from within any single system).
Its just basic math and logic that that is the case.
But that does NOT mean that SR is wrong or violates this fundamental logic
.. because SR is NOT about a single comparison of clockrates in a single
system, but about getting DIFFERENT comparisons for DIFFERENT systems.
Inertial
news:8f3fad12-1ccf-4c70...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
>> and B in relative motion:
>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
>> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
>I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
>does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
No .. they are perfectly valid .. for any single system (or frame) in which
one makes that comparison. It must be because you can calculate a real
numeric value for each rate, and so either the values are less, more, or the
same.
The problem arises when Ken then takes the unsupported leap to say that ALL
systems must agree on which of A and B is faster. This is analogous to
saying the if object X is moving faster then object Y in one system (or
frame), then X must be faster then Y in all frames. But clearly X is NOT
faster then Y in the rest frame of X (because X is at rest, so Y must be
moving faster).
Ken just can't think logically.
Sam Wormley
> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> and B in relative motion:
> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
No Seto! Special relativity is not about comparisons, Seto.
Rafael Valls
Try to specify an inertial frame where 1905 Einstein’s clock at the
equator (measured running slower than one at a pole in the Earth’s
centre of mass inertial system) is measured running faster than the
one at a pole.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Rafael Valls
Try to specify an inertial system where 1905 Einstein’s clock at the
equator (measured running slower than the one at a pole in the Earth’s
Koobee Wublee
> On 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > and B in relative motion:
> > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless. This is what
absolute simultaneity is all about. The laws of physics to remain as
robust and coherent as we observe them must require simultaneity to be
absolute. <shrug>
If simultaneity were to be relative as SR has indicated, then any
interferometers cannot possibly obtain the same coherent results
consistently. That means Michelson cannot possibly have won that
Nobel Prize in physics on interferometers. As an experimental
physicist, he understood that, and that was why he rejected SR. Later
generations of idiots who cannot understand the difference between
absolute and relative simultaneity would accuse Michelson of not
understanding the utter nonsense of SR. <shrug>
It should not take a genius to understand this point, but this seems
to elude the self-styled physicists for over 100 years and counting.
<shrug>
> This is simply not true, once one understands how the rate of a moving clock is
> measured.
Any measurement alone cannot do anyone any good, for it must be
applied with a sound, proper, and logical interpretation. Again,
among the experimental physicists, only Michelson had understood
this. <shrug>
> Since the two measurements are of DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, there is a
> possibility number 4:
>
> 4. Clocks at rest in inertial frame A are measured in inertial frame B to
> run slower than clocks at rest in frame B, and clocks at rest in frame
> B are measured in frame A to run slower than clocks at rest in frame A.
Notice special frames of references are added to cover the eventual
path to embarrassment. This means one can escape to a special frame
of reference where one can cast spells and put curses on others.
<shrug>
> Note that the two frames being inertial is ESSENTIAL for this.
In reality, there are no special frames of reference. All laws of
physics must apply equally in all frames. <shrug>
> The "mutual time dilation" of SR is a logical and necessary aspect of the
> theory.
Thank God that the above nonsense is never observed. <shrug>
> No contradiction is present.
Ahahaha... The silly ones who claim the validity of observed mutual
time dilation just deserves to be laughed at. Ahahahaha... Oh,
well. I guess stupidity must have run very deep after these 100 years
of nonsense. <shrug>
> The contradiction is PURELY in kenseto's
> ERRONEOUS GUESSES about what SR actually says.
Hmmm... It sounds like a priest defending his religion. <shrug>
Inertial
news:tf2dnVK96fwzxb7Q...@mchsi.com...
>
>On 1/3/11 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
>> and B in relative motion:
>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
>> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> No Seto!
Seto is correct for the case of comparing clock rates in any single frame of
reference (ie a single observer makes a measurement of clock A and a
measurement of clock B and compares the measured rates) Seto is NOT correct
when he talks about one observer measuring clock A an another measuring
clock B, nor is he correct if he claims that ALL observers will get the same
answer (1,2, or 3) for a given pair of clocks. However, each observer will
indeed get either 1, 2 or 3.
> Special relativity is not about comparisons, Seto.
Well .. it is really .. its about how measurements in one frame compare to
measurements in another frame .. as you go on to explain...
> Special relativity is the physical theory of measurement in
> inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein.
Well .. It doesn't really tell you how to measure things in an inertial
frame. It tells you how the measurements you DO make, in two different
frames, relate. So it is about comparisons.
Rest of post is fine.
Sam Wormley
> The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless. This is what
> absolute simultaneity is all about. The laws of physics to remain as
> robust and coherent as we observe them must require simultaneity to be
> absolute.<shrug>
Wow, Koobee, I have no idea you bought Seto's arguments, about
comparing clock from multiple perspectives.
Special relativity is not about comparisons, Koobee. Special
relativity is the physical theory of measurement in inertial
frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein.
Time dilation of clocks is one of special relativity's verified
Sam Wormley
Point taken.
Inertial
news:O5OdnQejdcKoXr7Q...@mchsi.com...
> Point taken.
Ta. It is very easy to say "Seto you are wrong", as in general that is the
likely case. But one must be careful to not dismiss EVERYTHING he says,. as
occasionally he throws in something correct (probably by chance, or so he
can call people idiots when they disagree). One can almost certainly find
that whatever Seto concludes from the occasional truth is almost certainly
wrong. As was the case here.
hanson
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>
Ken wrote:
>> > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing
>> > two clocks A and B in relative motion:
>> > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>> > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>> > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>> > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of
>> > two clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless. This is what
> absolute simultaneity is all about. The laws of physics to remain as
> robust and coherent as we observe them must require simultaneity to be
> absolute. <shrug>
> If simultaneity were to be relative as SR has indicated, then any
> interferometers cannot possibly obtain the same coherent results
> consistently. That means Michelson cannot possibly have won that
> Nobel Prize in physics on interferometers. As an experimental
> physicist, he understood that, and that was why he rejected SR. Later
> generations of idiots who cannot understand the difference between
> absolute and relative simultaneity would accuse Michelson of not
> understanding the utter nonsense of SR. <shrug>
> It should not take a genius to understand this point, but this seems
> to elude the self-styled physicists for over 100 years and counting.
> <shrug>
>
>> This is simply not true, once one understands how
>> the rate of a moving clock is measured.
>
> Any measurement alone cannot do anyone any good, for it must be
> applied with a sound, proper, and logical interpretation. Again,
> among the experimental physicists, only Michelson had understood
> this. <shrug>
>
>> Since the two measurements are of DIFFERENT QUANTITIES,
>> there is a possibility number 4:
>> 4. Clocks at rest in inertial frame A are measured in inertial frame B to
>> run slower than clocks at rest in frame B, and clocks at rest in
>> frame
>> B are measured in frame A to run slower than clocks at rest in frame
>> A.
>
> Notice special frames of references are added to cover the eventual
> path to embarrassment. This means one can escape to a special frame
> of reference where one can cast spells and put curses on others.
> <shrug>
>
>> Note that the two frames being inertial is ESSENTIAL for this.
>
> In reality, there are no special frames of reference. All laws of
> physics must apply equally in all frames. <shrug>
>
>> The "mutual time dilation" of SR is a logical and necessary
>> aspect of the theory.
>
> Thank God that the above nonsense is never observed. <shrug>
>
>> No contradiction is present.
>
KW wrote:
> Ahahaha... The silly ones who claim the validity of observed mutual
> time dilation just deserves to be laughed at. Ahahahaha... Oh,
> well. I guess stupidity must have run very deep after these 100 years
> of nonsense. <shrug>
>
>> The contradiction is PURELY in kenseto's
>> ERRONEOUS GUESSES about what SR actually says.
>
> Hmmm... It sounds like a priest defending his religion. <shrug>
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Too much!... ahahahaha..
A happy, healthy and a prosperous 2011 to you, Wubli.
Well, AFA as Tom being a priest, to me, he sounds more
like a Pimp for Einstein and his whoring Dingleberries.
So he said himself in his subject line. Of course, Tom will,
like all these rel-pimps do, invariably come back to you &
say in their final defense: "You must learn!".... ahahahaha...
because they themselves do not know what they are
talking about.. ahahahaha
>
Tom has maneuvered himself into a very uncomfy position.
A man with one clock always knows exactly what time it is.
Give him 2 clocks and he will never be sure again. Tom's
asking for frames for his clocks will not get rid of his problem.
>
Enter Sam Wormely who said a few days back:
||SW|| For Einstein, they were clearly part of God's thoughts.
||SW|| For Einstein, they were clearly part of God's thoughts.
Now Sam aggravates Tom's problem even more by saying:
||SW|| Special relativity is not about comparisons, Koobee.
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>
Let me be kind and withdraw the Pimp comparison, but
instead "observe" that the 2 old geezers, Tom & Sam, are
like 2 geriatric, senile mental patients who tell their shrink
what's wrong with him.... AHAHAHAHA... Too much!
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahanson
kenseto
>
> > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > and B in relative motion:
> > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
No idiot...these are the only rules that are valid in our universe
when comparing the rates of two clocks.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The PoR of SR asserts that all inertial frames (including the
> > preferred frame) are equivalent and that every SR observer can choose
> > any frame to do physics. Every SR observer chooses the preferred frame
> > to do phyiscs because it is the simplest frame to do physics. The
> > preferred frame has the following unique properties:
> > All the clocks moving wrt a preferred observer are predicts to run
> > slow compared to the preferred observer's clock.
> > This means that SR observer A claims (predicts) that B runs slow and
> > at the same time SR observer B claims (predicts) that A runs slow.
> > This is known as the SR concept of mutual time dilation.
>
> > As you can see the SR concept of mutual time dilation violates the
> > rules of our universe when comparing two clocks A and B in relative
> > motion. This means that SR is self contradictory or SR committed Hara-
> > Kiri (suicide).
>
> > A new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)
> > avoids the contradictory claim of mutual time dilation. Every IRT
> > observer claims (predicts) that an observed clock can run slow or fast
> > compared to his clock as follows:
> > The observed clock runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
> > The observed clock runs fast by a factor of gamma.
> > Only one of these predictions of IRT is correct.
> > A paper on IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > Also visit my website for more papers on my theory:http://www.modelmechanics.org/
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Jan 3, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > and B in relative motion:
> > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless.
Where is there "logic" in Mr. Seto's statements? Those are assertions.
Do you consider bald assertions that agree with your common-sense
world-view to be examples of "logic"?
> This is what
> absolute simultaneity is all about. The laws of physics to remain as
> robust and coherent as we observe them must require simultaneity to be
> absolute. <shrug>
What in the laws of physics requires simultaneity to be absolute?
Please elucidate.
>
> If simultaneity were to be relative as SR has indicated, then any
> interferometers cannot possibly obtain the same coherent results
> consistently.
How so?
> That means Michelson cannot possibly have won that
> Nobel Prize in physics on interferometers. As an experimental
> physicist, he understood that, and that was why he rejected SR. Later
> generations of idiots who cannot understand the difference between
> absolute and relative simultaneity would accuse Michelson of not
> understanding the utter nonsense of SR. <shrug>
>
[Rest snipped as being useless]
kenseto
> On Jan 4, 9:18 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> > > does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
>
> > Hey idiot professor...there is no exception to those rules when
> > comaring two clocks in our universe.
>
> You don't get to make that call, Ken. You're not God, you don't write
> the rules.
> Nature does things that are surprising, as discovered in experiment --
> even things you think are impossible. Get used to it.
I didn't make that call....those are the rules when comparing the rate
of any two clocks.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Jan 4, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > and B in relative motion:
> > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> > does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
>
> No idiot...these are the only rules that are valid in our universe
> when comparing the rates of two clocks.
Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Those rules you have asserted to be
the only ones valid are simply not respected by the universe, and that
is reflected in actual measurement.
Insistence on rules you make up, even though measurements are
consistent with the obvious, is a sign of detachment from reality, a
form of mental illness.
kenseto
Hey iodiot you learn the rules when comparing any two clocks.
kenseto
> On 1/4/11 9:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 9:50 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/4/11 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 3, 5:33 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/3/11 2:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>>>> SR says: A predicts B runs slow and
> >>>>> that B predicts A runs slow
>
> >>>> Yes this is correct.
>
> >>> Hey idiot that's what violates the rules of the universe when
> >>> comparing the rates of two clocks.
>
> >> Rules of the universe? You gotta be kidding us, Seto. The rules
> >> are determined by the results of observation and experiment.
> >> Special relativity is one of the rules.
>
> > No idiot...those are the rules when comparing the rates of two clocks.
> > SR prediction is not a rule. You are so stupid.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Special relativity is not about comparisons, Seto.
Hey idiot SR is about comparison.
> Special relativity
> is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference
> proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein.
>
> Time dilation of clocks is one of special relativity's verified
> predictions.
>
> For example, let ∆t be an interval of proper time in the inertial
> frame of some clock. Let ∆t' be that clock's time interval as
> measured by an observer.
>
> Then it follow that from an Observers Perspective, that
> ∆t' = γ ∆t
>
> Where v is the relative velocity between the clock and
kenseto
I didn't mess up....you did.
#1 and #2 are mutually exclusive for any pair of clocks....if #1 is
true then #2 is false....conversely if #2 is true #1 is false.
Ken Seto
> guido- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
And those rules are?
PD
> On Jan 4, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 9:18 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> > > > does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
>
> > > Hey idiot professor...there is no exception to those rules when
> > > comaring two clocks in our universe.
>
> > You don't get to make that call, Ken. You're not God, you don't write
> > the rules.
> > Nature does things that are surprising, as discovered in experiment --
> > even things you think are impossible. Get used to it.
>
> I didn't make that call....those are the rules when comparing the rate
> of any two clocks.
Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Those are not the rules that the
universe goes by.
The rules the universe goes by is settled by experiment, not
assertions from what you think is possible.
kenseto
> ?"kenseto" wrote in message
>
> news:30038ab7-9f80-429b...@g26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> >and B in relative motion:
> >1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>
> Of course that is the case, for any given observer
No....for both observer A and B.
>
> >2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>
> Of course that is the case, for any given observer
No for both observers A and B.
>
> > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>
> Of course that is the case, for a given observer
No for both observers A and B.
>
> They are the only three possibilities, for any given observer
No for both observers A and B.
>
> >Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> >clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> That's right, for any given observer
No for both observers A and B.
>
> But that does not mean the one observer cannot measure A as faster then B,
> and another measure A as slower than B
There is no measurement....SR says: A predicts B runs slow and B
predicts that A runs slow. These SR predictions violate the rules when
comparing the rates of A and B.
>
> > The PoR of SR asserts that all inertial frames (including the
> > preferred frame)
>
> There is no preferred frame .. that's the whole point of the PoR
In SR the preferred frame is renamed as the inertial frame.
Ken Seto.
kenseto
> ?"kenseto" wrote in message
>
> news:6f167f28-bc85-4ee8...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Jan 3, 5:30 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >> > On Jan 3, 1:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 1/3/11 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> >>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> >> You must specify in which system.
> >This rule applies in any system.
> >> >>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> >> You must specify in which system.
> >This rule applies in any system.
> >> >>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> >> You must specify in which system.
> >This rule applies in any system.
>
> That's right. Pick any system and either 1, 2 or 3 applies.
>
> That does NOT mean that *different* systems will agree on the comparison of
> A and B
We are not talking about different system observing A and B. We are
talking about what A predicts the rate of B and what B predicts the
rate of A.
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
> We are not talking about different system observing A and B. We are
> talking about what A predicts the rate of B and what B predicts the
> rate of A.
>
Let's see if you can follow this, Seto.
Let ∆t_A be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame
of reference of A, say one second. Let ∆t_A' be A's time interval
as measured by an observer, B.
Using special relativity
∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A
Where v is the relative velocity between muon and Earth Surface and
γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
_________________
Let ∆t_B be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame
of reference of B, say one second. Let ∆t_B' be B's time interval
as measured by an observer, A.
Using special relativity
∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B
Where v is the relative velocity between muon and Earth Surface and
γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
wugi
>> Here's where you mess up.
>> 1. and 2. are true by themselves.
>> They DON'T exclude each other, actually 1. is true in system A and
>> 2. is true in system B.
>
> I didn't mess up....you did.
> #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive for any pair of clocks....if #1 is
> true then #2 is false....conversely if #2 is true #1 is false.
That's your gospel, based on the outdated absolute time assumption.
Time is NOT sth on its own, it's only a reservoir for phenomena unfolding,
including its own gauge tools, clocks. And together with them it depends
ultimately on the propagation of light (but the latter in turn NOT on
material or "aetherial" phenomena) and is, thus, relativistic.
It takes only basic math and geometry to get the grasp of all this, but
Usenet knows nobody is going to cure people like you into this view.
Koobee Wublee
> On 1/4/11 5:40 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless. This is what
> > absolute simultaneity is all about. The laws of physics to remain as
> > robust and coherent as we observe them must require simultaneity to be
> > absolute.<shrug>
>
> Wow, Koobee, I have no idea you bought Seto's arguments, about
> comparing clock from multiple perspectives.
You are not a mental giant, and that is why. <shrug>
> Special relativity is not about comparisons, Koobee.
Any measurement is a comparison of something against a standard unit.
Sam indeed has his head in the cloud. <shrug>
> Special
> relativity is the physical theory of measurement in inertial
> frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein.
That can mean a lot of things. One thing that is for certain is that
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not come up with
anything original. <shrug>
SR was an interpretation to the Lorentz transform which was created by
Poincare with no experimental basis. Larmor’s version of the Lorentz
transform must be referenced back to the absolute frame of reference.
In the very special case where both observers are moving in parallel
relative to the absolute frame of reference, the absolute frame of
reference drops out of Larmor’s version of the Lorentz transform.
Poincare made the mathematical mistake of extending this special case
to cover all general ones. This is all in the mathematics of the
Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> Time dilation of clocks is one of special relativity's verified
> predictions.
So what! There are lots of hypotheses, theories, and/or conjectures
that predict time dilations. <shrug>
> [blah blah blah snipped]
However, SR predicts this mutual time dilation. Show me experimental
results that verify this mutual time dilation. Quit babbling. Just
show me. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
[...]
> <shrug>
[...]
> <shrug>
[...]
> <shrug>
[...]
> <shrug>
[...]
> <shrug>
[...]
> <shrug>
Interesting.
Androcles
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f00c8c01-dea7-431b...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Inertial
>No for both observers A and B.
Wrong .. It is very easy to set up clocks that don't behave that way.
>> But that does not mean the one observer cannot measure A as faster then
>> B,
>> and another measure A as slower than B
>
>There is no measurement
On what ground do you claim that their can't be one .. why do you think it
is impossible to measure the rate of a moving clock ?
> ....SR says: A predicts B runs slow
No, SR says: A *measures* B as running slow. SR doesn't say anything about
what someone may or may not predict
> and B predicts that A runs slow.
No, SR says: B *measures* that A runs slow. SR doesn't say anything about
what someone may or may not predict
> These SR predictions violate the rules when
> comparing the rates of A and B.
No .. they don't. They only violate the nonsense that you made up .. ie
that all observers must agree on the comparison of clock rates.
>> > The PoR of SR asserts that all inertial frames (including the
>> > preferred frame)
>>
>> There is no preferred frame .. that's the whole point of the PoR
>
>In SR the preferred frame is renamed as the inertial frame.
Wrong .. by definition of "the preferred frame" there can be only one of it.
So your statement that SR says every inertial frame is the preferred frame
is utter nonsense and NOT what SR says at all. You have to lie about SR to
pretend to find something wrong about it, and your logic is hopelessly
flawed. You're a well known liar. And you've demonstrated it again
Inertial
>
>On Jan 4, 11:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> ?"kenseto" wrote in message
>>
>> news:6f167f28-bc85-4ee8...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 3, 5:30 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>> >> kenseto wrote:
>> >> > On Jan 3, 1:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On 1/3/11 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> >> >>> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
>> >> You must specify in which system.
>> >This rule applies in any system.
>> >> >>> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
>> >> You must specify in which system.
>> >This rule applies in any system.
>> >> >>> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
>> >> You must specify in which system.
>> >This rule applies in any system.
>>
>> That's right. Pick any system and either 1, 2 or 3 applies.
>>
>> That does NOT mean that *different* systems will agree on the comparison
>> of
>> A and B
>
>We are not talking about different system observing A and B.
Yes .. we are
> We are
> talking about what A predicts the rate of B and what B predicts the
> rate of A.
That's two systems: A's and B's. You can't even count to two.
hanson
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
[.1..]
> <shrug>
[.2..]
> <shrug>
[.3..]
> <shrug>
[.4..]
> <shrug>
[.5..]
> <shrug>
[.6..]
> <shrug>
>
Eric wrote:
Interesting.
>
hanson wrote:
.... yes, because these "<shrugs>" correspond to the
number of years you have been polishing your school
bench in your attempt to get your still elusive B.Sc.
<shrug>... and thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
kenseto
> On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > > On 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless.
>
> Where is there "logic" in Mr. Seto's statements? Those are assertions.
> Do you consider bald assertions that agree with your common-sense
> world-view to be examples of "logic"?
So idiot professor... you think that the rates of two clocks A and B
do not obey the following rules? You are so stupid.
1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
3. A and B run at the same rate.
Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> ?"kenseto" wrote in message
>
> news:03809fd6-ca80-4410...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> >No for both observers A and B.
>
> Wrong .. It is very easy to set up clocks that don't behave that way.
>
Then do it....the GPS disagree with your assertion. The SR effect on
the GPS is 7 us/day running slow....however, from the GPS point of
view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast.
> >> But that does not mean the one observer cannot measure A as faster then
> >> B,
> >> and another measure A as slower than B
>
> >There is no measurement
>
> On what ground do you claim that their can't be one .. why do you think it
> is impossible to measure the rate of a moving clock ?
Sigh...you use the SR equation to predict the rate of a movinmg clock.
Prediction is not a measurement. Also how do you physically measure
the rate of a moving clock?
>
> > ....SR says: A predicts B runs slow
>
> No, SR says: A *measures* B as running slow. SR doesn't say anything about
> what someone may or may not predict
Sigh....SR got a bunch of equations. You runts of the SRians made the
bogus assertion by saying that these predictions are measured results.
BTW SR does not say that A measures B as running slow....Sr does not
provide the procedure for such measurement.
>
> > and B predicts that A runs slow.
>
> No, SR says: B *measures* that A runs slow. SR doesn't say anything about
> what someone may or may not predict
>
> > These SR predictions violate the rules when
> > comparing the rates of A and B.
>
> No .. they don't. They only violate the nonsense that you made up .. ie
> that all observers must agree on the comparison of clock rates.
There is no nonsense to what I said....The GPS confirm what I said.
Both the gravitational effect and the velocity effect for the GPS obey
the rules I set forth.
Can you name a real situation that confirm the SR assertion of mutual
time dilation? I guess not.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On Jan 5, 8:43 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> > > does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
>
> > No idiot...these are the only rules that are valid in our universe
> > when comparing the rates of two clocks.
>
> Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Those rules you have asserted to be
> the only ones valid are simply not respected by the universe, and that
> is reflected in actual measurement.
Hey idiot...you have two watches side by side....how do you compare
their rates?? The only way to compare them are as follows:
1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
3. A and B run at the same rate.
Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
These rules apply to all pairs of clocks whether they are side by side
or in relative motion. you are more stupid than a bag of dirt.
Ken Seto
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
Hey idiot those are the only rules when comparing two clocks. The GPS
obey these rules. The SR bogus assertion of mutual time dilation is
outside the rules of the univerve when comparing two clocks. No two
clocks in our universe obey the SR concept of mutual time dilation.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
PD
> On Jan 5, 9:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > > > On 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless.
>
> > Where is there "logic" in Mr. Seto's statements? Those are assertions.
> > Do you consider bald assertions that agree with your common-sense
> > world-view to be examples of "logic"?
>
> So idiot professor... you think that the rates of two clocks A and B
> do not obey the following rules?
That's right, Ken. Nature does not respect those rules. You can't make
nature obey rules. You have to determine through experiment which
rules it in fact respects.
> You are so stupid.
> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
Nature doesn't care about your rules, Ken.
PD
No, I'm sorry, Ken, they aren't.
Those are not the rules nature goes by.
PD
> On Jan 5, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 8:43 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> > > > does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
>
> > > No idiot...these are the only rules that are valid in our universe
> > > when comparing the rates of two clocks.
>
> > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Those rules you have asserted to be
> > the only ones valid are simply not respected by the universe, and that
> > is reflected in actual measurement.
>
> Hey idiot...you have two watches side by side.
Side-by-side watches are mutually at rest, Ken. The rules that work ok
for watches mutually at rest do not work in general.
The universe doesn't respect the rules you made up.
>...how do you compare
> their rates?? The only way to compare them are as follows:
> 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> These rules apply to all pairs of clocks whether they are side by side
> or in relative motion. you are more stupid than a bag of dirt.
It really doesn't matter whether you think anyone is stupid that
doesn't believe rules you make up. What matters is what nature
respects, and nature doesn't respect those rules. Period.
kenseto
Hey idiot....the point is both A and B uses the same math to predict
the rate of each other clock rate and thus you get the bogus concept
of mutual time dilation. In our universe clocks in relative motion run
at different rates and that's why an observer can't use the same to
predict the rate of a moving clock.
IRT overcome this problem by saying that an IRT observer predicts that
the rate of an observed clock can run slow or fast compare to the rate
of his own clock.
Honestly wormy you are dumber than a bag of dirt.
kenseto
No we are not...
>
> > We are
> > talking about what A predicts the rate of B and what B predicts the
> > rate of A.
>
> That's two systems: A's and B's. You can't even count to two.
The point is A and B must not give the same prediction for each
other's clock rate as asserted by the boigus concept of mutual time
dilation....why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
the rate of two clocks. Also the rules I established are confirmed by
the GPS.
Ken Seto
PD
> .why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
> the rate of two clocks.
Your problem, Ken, is that you think the laws of physics must respect
some fictional "rules of logic". They do not. Laws of physics often
make NO SENSE at first because they completely conflict with common
sense. That's ok. It's common sense that's faulty, not the laws of
physics.
Nature does what it does. It doesn't care at all what we think is
"logical".
Get used to it.
kenseto
kenseto
> >> Here's where you mess up.
> >> 1. and 2. are true by themselves.
> >> They DON'T exclude each other, actually 1. is true in system A and
> >> 2. is true in system B.
>
> > I didn't mess up....you did.
> > #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive for any pair of clocks....if #1 is
> > true then #2 is false....conversely if #2 is true #1 is false.
>
> That's your gospel, based on the outdated absolute time assumption.
No it's not my assumption based on the existence of absolute time. It
is based on comparing two clocks side by side.....if #1 is true then
#2 is false and if #2 is true then #1 is false. These rules apply to
any pair of clocks whether they ARE AT REST WRT EACH OTHER OR in
relative motion wrt each other.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> >> Here's where you mess up.
> >> 1. and 2. are true by themselves.
> >> They DON'T exclude each other, actually 1. is true in system A and
> >> 2. is true in system B.
>
> > I didn't mess up....you did.
> > #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive for any pair of clocks....if #1 is
> > true then #2 is false....conversely if #2 is true #1 is false.
>
> That's your gospel, based on the outdated absolute time assumption.
No....that's not my assumption based on the existence of absolute
time. That's the rules when comparing two clocks side by side. If #1
is true then #2 is false and if #2 is true then #1 is false. There is
no exception to these rules.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On Jan 6, 8:24 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 8:43 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 4, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 3, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but those are rules that you made up. The universe
> > > > > does not behave according to rules that Ken Seto makes up.
>
> > > > No idiot...these are the only rules that are valid in our universe
> > > > when comparing the rates of two clocks.
>
> > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Those rules you have asserted to be
> > > the only ones valid are simply not respected by the universe, and that
> > > is reflected in actual measurement.
>
> > Hey idiot...you have two watches side by side.
>
> Side-by-side watches are mutually at rest, Ken. The rules that work ok
> for watches mutually at rest do not work in general.
The rules work for all situations. The problem is the following bogus
SR assumptions:
1. Time is what the clock measures...there is no absolute time.
2. A clock second in different frames represents the same amount of
time.
3. The intrinsic rate of a clock is unchanged in different frames.
4. A can predict that B runs slow and at the same time B predicts that
A runs slow...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
such predictions are not possible in our universe.
Ken Seto
PD
That's your assertion, but it's counter to experimental evidence. It
works in SOME cases (like the GPS) but is not a general rule. It's the
OTHER situations that prove the rule wrong, Ken.
The universe does not respect your made-up rules, Ken. No amount of
your repeating it will change that.
Michael Moroney
>Interesting.
That's how you can tell Koobee is lying. He shrugs.
Michael Moroney
>On Jan 6, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wrong .. It is very easy to set up clocks that don't behave that way.
>>
>Then do it....the GPS disagree with your assertion. The SR effect on
>the GPS is 7 us/day running slow....however, from the GPS point of
>view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast.
Once again, you *assert* again and again and again that the GPS satellite
sees the ground clock running ~7us/day fast. I've asked you repeatedly
for any evidence (experiments or GPS design specs) that this is true,
yet you ignore me, but go on to repeat this lie again and again.
Assertion is not an argument. Put up or shut up.
>There is no nonsense to what I said....The GPS confirm what I said.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THAT? Assertion is not an argument!
The "Big Lie" technique is not physics, either.
>Both the gravitational effect and the velocity effect for the GPS obey
>the rules I set forth.
Nature is not about to obey rules you create for nature to obey!
kenseto
> On Jan 6, 8:01 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 9:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 3, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > > The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless.
>
> > > Where is there "logic" in Mr. Seto's statements? Those are assertions.
> > > Do you consider bald assertions that agree with your common-sense
> > > world-view to be examples of "logic"?
>
> > So idiot professor... you think that the rates of two clocks A and B
> > do not obey the following rules?
>
> That's right, Ken. Nature does not respect those rules. You can't make
> nature obey rules. You have to determine through experiment which
> rules it in fact respects.
But idiot nature does obey those rules. The GPS obey these these
rules. There is not set of ifentical clock that obey the rule of
mutual time dialtion.
>
> > You are so stupid.
> > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> Nature doesn't care about your rules, Ken.
Wrong nature care about these rules....ntaure does not agree with the
rules of mutual time dilation.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > This is what
> > > > absolute simultaneity is all about. The laws of physics to remain as
> > > > robust and coherent as we observe them must require simultaneity to be
> > > > absolute. <shrug>
>
> > > What in the laws of physics requires simultaneity to be absolute?
> > > Please elucidate.
>
> > > > If simultaneity were to be relative as SR has indicated, then any
> > > > interferometers cannot possibly obtain the same coherent results
> > > > consistently.
>
> > > How so?
>
> > > > That means Michelson cannot possibly have won that
> > > > Nobel Prize in physics on interferometers. As an experimental
> > > > physicist, he understood that, and that was why he rejected SR. Later
> > > > generations of idiots who cannot understand the difference between
> > > > absolute and relative simultaneity would accuse Michelson of not
> > > > understanding the utter nonsense of SR. <shrug>
>
> > > [Rest snipped as being useless]- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Jan 6, 9:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 8:01 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 9:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 3, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1/3/11 - 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > In our universe the following rules exit when comparing two clocks A
> > > > > > > and B in relative motion:
> > > > > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B must run slower than A.
> > > > > > > 2. B runs faster than A then A must run slower than B.
> > > > > > > 3. A and B run at the same rate.
> > > > > > > Only one of these rules is valid when comparing the rates of two
> > > > > > > clocks A and B. There is no exception to these rules.
>
> > > > > The logic put together by Mr. Seto is indeed flawless.
>
> > > > Where is there "logic" in Mr. Seto's statements? Those are assertions.
> > > > Do you consider bald assertions that agree with your common-sense
> > > > world-view to be examples of "logic"?
>
> > > So idiot professor... you think that the rates of two clocks A and B
> > > do not obey the following rules?
>
> > That's right, Ken. Nature does not respect those rules. You can't make
> > nature obey rules. You have to determine through experiment which
> > rules it in fact respects.
>
> But idiot nature does obey those rules.
Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Experiment says otherwise.
> The GPS obey these these
> rules.
Yes, they do, but you say those rules apply in ALL cases, not just the
GPS case.
> There is not set of ifentical clock that obey the rule of
> mutual time dialtion.
Not so, Ken.
kenseto
> On Jan 6, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > .why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
> > the rate of two clocks.
>
> Your problem, Ken, is that you think the laws of physics must respect
> some fictional "rules of logic". They do not.
I got no problem....it is you who got problem. You guys invented
epicycles upon epicycles to make nature to fit SR....this is wrong.
>Laws of physics often
> make NO SENSE at first because they completely conflict with common
> sense. That's ok. It's common sense that's faulty, not the laws of
> physics.
No its not common sense that's wrong....it's the bogus epicyles that
you guys invented to make SR comform to observations. There is no way
that A predicts that B runs slow and at the same time B predicts that
A runs slow.....one of these predictions is wrong.
Ken Seto
kenseto
There is no assertion on my part. There is no experiment that support
mutual time dilation. Why? because no two identical clocks moving at
relative velocity are available to observe mutual time dilation. The
decay of a particle such as pion cannot be use to support mutual time
dilation.....why? because the life time of pion is different in
different frames.
>
> > The GPS obey these these
> > rules.
>
> Yes, they do, but you say those rules apply in ALL cases, not just the
> GPS case.
Ah....so we have an agreement that the GPS obey those rules. The
arguement now is: are those rules apply in all cases. My arguement are
as follows:
1. The GPS obey those rules.
2. There is no pair of clocks that obey mutual time dilation.
kenseto
So are you saying that the GPS is not part of nature's rule?
Ken Seto
kenseto
Then give us a pair of identical clocks that obey the bogus concept of
PD
> On Jan 6, 10:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > .why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
> > > the rate of two clocks.
>
> > Your problem, Ken, is that you think the laws of physics must respect
> > some fictional "rules of logic". They do not.
>
> I got no problem....it is you who got problem. You guys invented
> epicycles upon epicycles to make nature to fit SR....this is wrong.
No epicycles. Detailed experimental measurement, Ken, which you're
unfortunately poorly informed about. This isn't made up. Nature tells
us what the rules are.
You can't make up rules and expect nature to live up to them.
>
> >Laws of physics often
> > make NO SENSE at first because they completely conflict with common
> > sense. That's ok. It's common sense that's faulty, not the laws of
> > physics.
>
> No its not common sense that's wrong....it's the bogus epicyles that
> you guys invented to make SR comform to observations. There is no way
> that A predicts that B runs slow and at the same time B predicts that
> A runs slow.....one of these predictions is wrong.
I'm sorry, Ken, but it just ain't so. Your common sense IS wrong.
PD
That's simply an incorrect claim of yours, Ken. There ARE experiments
that support mutual time dilation.
> Why? because no two identical clocks moving at
> relative velocity are available to observe mutual time dilation. The
> decay of a particle such as pion cannot be use to support mutual time
> dilation.....why? because the life time of pion is different in
> different frames.
>
>
>
> > > The GPS obey these these
> > > rules.
>
> > Yes, they do, but you say those rules apply in ALL cases, not just the
> > GPS case.
>
> Ah....so we have an agreement that the GPS obey those rules. The
> arguement now is: are those rules apply in all cases.
One doesn't ARGUE it. One consults nature in experiment.
> My arguement are
> as follows:
> 1. The GPS obey those rules.
> 2. There is no pair of clocks that obey mutual time dilation.
The second statement is incorrect.
PD
No, Ken.
You don't know how to apply rules. Rules come with conditions that
state when they apply. You ignore those conditions and try to apply
rules where they are not intended to apply, and then you complain that
the rules don't work. You're an idiot.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Jan 7, 6:59=A0am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 10:02=A0am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 6, 8:49=A0am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > .why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
>> > > the rate of two clocks.
>>
>> > Your problem, Ken, is that you think the laws of physics must respect
>> > some fictional "rules of logic". They do not.
>>
>> I got no problem....it is you who got problem. You guys invented
>> epicycles upon epicycles to make nature to fit SR....this is wrong.
>
>No epicycles. Detailed experimental measurement, Ken, which you're
>unfortunately poorly informed about. This isn't made up. Nature tells
>us what the rules are.
As I pointed out in a post a year ago, here's a formulation of a theory
that many SR dissenters seem to be comfortable with---they may not
think it is true, but they tend to believe that it is at least
consistent:
The theory of the preferred frame:
There is a preferred inertial frame F (with an associated inertial
coordinate system (x,y,z,t)) such that:
1. As measured in this frame, light travels at speed c in
every direction, independent of the motion of the source.
That is: it travels so that dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt are all constant,
and square-root((dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2) = c.
2. As measured in this frame, a standard clock moving at speed v
relative to this frame has elapsed time T that advances according
to dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
3. As measured in this frame, a standard measuring rod that is
moving at speed v relative to this frame in the direction of its
length has a length given by L(v) = L_0 square-root(1-(v/c)^2),
where L_0 is the length of an identically constructed rod at
rest in the frame.
I think that most people would believe that this theory is
at least consistent, if not true. But the predictions of SR
are *identical* with this theory (at least as far as thought
experiments involving rods and clocks and twins is concerned).
You can prove from 1-3 that if F is the preferred frame,
and F' is any other inertial frame, then there is a coordinate
system x',y',z',t' such that 1-3 all hold for frame F' using
those coordinates.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Edward Green
> As I pointed out in a post a year ago,
Time flies like an arrow when you're having fun.
>here's a formulation of a theory
> that many SR dissenters seem to be comfortable with---they may not
> think it is true, but they tend to believe that it is at least
> consistent:
>
> The theory of the preferred frame:
>
> There is a preferred inertial frame F (with an associated inertial
> coordinate system (x,y,z,t)) such that:
>
> 1. As measured in this frame, light travels at speed c in
> every direction, independent of the motion of the source.
> That is: it travels so that dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt are all constant,
> and square-root((dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2) = c.
>
> 2. As measured in this frame, a standard clock moving at speed v
> relative to this frame has elapsed time T that advances according
> to dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
>
> 3. As measured in this frame, a standard measuring rod that is
> moving at speed v relative to this frame in the direction of its
> length has a length given by L(v) = L_0 square-root(1-(v/c)^2),
> where L_0 is the length of an identically constructed rod at
> rest in the frame.
That's a good formulation. I like it. As you know, I am a bit crankish
in this way, since I have a hunch there may actually be such a
preferred frame, and it may someday manifest its existence by being
the preferred frame for isotropic tachyon propagation, should we ever
observe any. However, in the meantime, I readily admit that...
> I think that most people would believe that this theory is
> at least consistent, if not true. But the predictions of SR
> are *identical* with this theory (at least as far as thought
> experiments involving rods and clocks and twins is concerned).
> You can prove from 1-3 that if F is the preferred frame,
> and F' is any other inertial frame, then there is a coordinate
> system x',y',z',t' such that 1-3 all hold for frame F' using
> those coordinates.
Why your reservation about clocks and rods and twins? Do you suppose
that such a theory may be insufficient to deal with the
electromagnetic field, for example?
BTW, I particularly like this theory for understanding the twin
paradox, in my cranky non-standard way: we may infer that, given a
preferred frame, no matter what it may be, that the result of the twin
paradox may be understood to embody the effect of "absolute clock
rates" in this frame. I also see the ghost of such a frame in the
existence of those trajectories which take us to infinity in finite
proper time (via unbounded, but never infinite, accelerations). I
understand this as saying that if we go "fast enough" relative to any
fixed reference frame that our absolute clock rate will in fact go to
zero: no matter what the supposed preferred frame, we are guaranteed
to be going arbitrarily fast in this frame eventually.
(I'm glad that none of the regulars seem to doubt this existence of
such trajectories, however dyspeptically they may view the possibility
of unbounded acceleration, because just at the moment I forget how to
construct one :-}. Perhaps you can remind me.
hanson
U-Boat commander "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
> stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Daryl wrote:
> As I pointed out in a post a year ago,
Time flies like an arrow when you're having fun.
> here's a formulation of a theory that many SR dissenters
> seem to be comfortable with---they may not think it is
>true, but they tend to believe that it is at least consistent:
> --------- The theory of the preferred frame: -----------
> There is a preferred inertial frame F (with an associated
> inertial coordinate system (x,y,z,t)) such that:
>
> 1. As measured in this frame, light travels at speed c in
> every direction, independent of the motion of the source.
> That is: it travels so that dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt are all constant,
> and square-root((dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2) = c.
>
> 2. As measured in this frame, a standard clock moving at speed v
> relative to this frame has elapsed time T that advances according
> to dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
>
> 3. As measured in this frame, a standard measuring rod that is
> moving at speed v relative to this frame in the direction of its
> length has a length given by L(v) = L_0 square-root(1-(v/c)^2),
> where L_0 is the length of an identically constructed rod at
> rest in the frame.
>
U-Boat commander wrote:
That's a good formulation. I like it. As you know, I am a bit crankish
in this way, since I have a hunch there may actually be such a
preferred frame, and it may someday manifest its existence by being
the preferred frame for isotropic tachyon propagation, should we ever
observe any. However, in the meantime, I readily admit that...
>
Daryl continued and wrote:
> I think that most people would believe that this theory is
> at least consistent, if not true. But the predictions of SR
> are *identical* with this theory (at least as far as thought
> experiments involving rods and clocks and twins is concerned).
> You can prove from 1-3 that if F is the preferred frame,
> and F' is any other inertial frame, then there is a coordinate
> system x',y',z',t' such that 1-3 all hold for frame F' using
> those coordinates.
>
U-Boat commander wrote:
Why your reservation about clocks and rods and twins?
Do you suppose that such a theory may be insufficient to deal
with the electromagnetic field, for example?
BTW, I particularly like this theory for understanding the twin
paradox, in my cranky non-standard way: we may infer that, given a
preferred frame, no matter what it may be, that the result of the twin
paradox may be understood to embody the effect of "absolute clock
rates" in this frame. I also see the ghost of such a frame in the
existence of those trajectories which take us to infinity in finite
proper time (via unbounded, but never infinite, accelerations). I
understand this as saying that if we go "fast enough" relative to any
fixed reference frame that our absolute clock rate will in fact go to
zero: no matter what the supposed preferred frame, we are
guaranteed to be going arbitrarily fast in this frame eventually.
(I'm glad that none of the regulars seem to doubt this existence of
such trajectories, however dyspeptically they may view the possibility
of unbounded acceleration, because just at the moment I forget how to
construct one :-}. Perhaps you can remind me.
>
hanson wrote:
Ed, not so fast with your Dyspepsia. Let's first shine some
light onto and then into it. Why can't you see that 1st you
did "frame dragging" & then you performed "frame jumping"
and THAT is **"Re: How SR Commits Hara-Kiri (Suicide)"**
... The OP was not kidding... Thanks for the alughs, though
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
> PD says...
> > [Knock, knock?]
Who gives a damn about what PD has to say?
Hint: Not yours truly. <shrug>
> The theory of the preferred frame:
The problem is that you called the absolute frame of reference a
“preferred” frame. That implies magical properties. The laws of
physics must be obeyed by any frame of reference regardless if
inertial, semi-inertial, Einstein Dingleberrylike inertial, or
whatever more crookedly inertial. That includes the absolute frame of
reference. <shrug>
> There is a preferred inertial frame F (with an associated inertial
> coordinate system (x,y,z,t)) such that:
>
> 1. As measured in this frame, light travels at speed c in
> every direction, independent of the motion of the source.
> That is: it travels so that dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt are all constant,
> and square-root((dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2) = c.
This is true for classical physics of electromagnetism before 1887.
In 1887, Voigt was the first to propose invariance in the speed of
light as observed by any observers. Certainly, it was not Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who first cast the postulate/
assumption. <shrug>
> 2. As measured in this frame, a standard clock moving at speed v
> relative to this frame has elapsed time T that advances according
> to dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
Not the classical electromagnetism before 1887 where it was dT = dt.
<shrug>
> 3. As measured in this frame, a standard measuring rod that is
> moving at speed v relative to this frame in the direction of its
> length has a length given by L(v) = L_0 square-root(1-(v/c)^2),
> where L_0 is the length of an identically constructed rod at
> rest in the frame.
>
> I think that most people would believe that this theory is
> at least consistent, if not true. But the predictions of SR
> are *identical* with this theory (at least as far as thought
> experiments involving rods and clocks and twins is concerned).
> You can prove from 1-3 that if F is the preferred frame,
> and F' is any other inertial frame, then there is a coordinate
> system x',y',z',t' such that 1-3 all hold for frame F' using
> those coordinates.
There are many conjectures based on the absolute frame of reference.
Do you really think you can summarize all that up with a concise post
like this? If so, think again. <shrug>
K_h
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:ig826v$jqv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes, such a theory cannot really deal with that because there is no mention of
how E and B fields behave. Such a theory does not state if, how ,or why physical
laws would be the same in each inertial frame of reference and there is no
explanation of the mechanism explaining why clocks and rulers would behave
according to items (1), (2) and (3). So (1), (2), and (3) are totally ad-hoc in
nature. That theory also suffers from a number of other problems as well,
including how to test the unknown mechanisms which supposedly account for (1),
(2), and (3). Unless there is a way to test for the existence of such ad-hoc
mechanisms, the `theory' is unscientific by definition.
+
Inertial
>>
>>
>> >No for both observers A and B.
>>
>> Wrong .. It is very easy to set up clocks that don't behave that way.
>>
>
>Then do it....
I have before
> the GPS disagree with your assertion.
My 'assertion' does not apply to GPS, as the GPS does not move inertially
> The SR effect on
>the GPS is 7 us/day running slow....however, from the GPS point of
>view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast.
No .. the SR effect is that after a full orbit, the GPS clock is slower than
the ground clock
>> >> But that does not mean the one observer cannot measure A as faster
>> >> then
>> >> B,
>> >> and another measure A as slower than B
>>
>> >There is no measurement
>>
>> On what ground do you claim that their can't be one .. why do you think
>> it
>> is impossible to measure the rate of a moving clock ?
>
>Sigh...you use the SR equation to predict the rate of a movinmg clock.
Yes . a prediction of what would be MEASURED
>Prediction is not a measurement.
It is a prediction of what would be MEASURED. Just like anything else that
a theory says in physics
. Also how do you physically measure
> the rate of a moving clock?
I've told you before. You record a reading at one time and place as the
clock goes past, and then record a reading at another time and place later
on when the clock goes past and calculate the rate from that. Its very easy
>, and then
>
>>
>> > ....SR says: A predicts B runs slow
>>
>> No, SR says: A *measures* B as running slow. SR doesn't say anything
>> about
>> what someone may or may not predict
>
>Sigh....SR got a bunch of equations. You runts of the SRians made the
>bogus assertion by saying that these predictions are measured results.
They are predictions of measured results
>BTW SR does not say that A measures B as running slow....
Yes .. it does
> Sr does not
>provide the procedure for such measurement.
It doesn't need to .. we already know how to measure clock rates .. SR tells
us what they will be
>>> > and B predicts that A runs slow.
>>>
>>> No, SR says: B *measures* that A runs slow. SR doesn't say anything
>>> about
>>> what someone may or may not predict
>>>
>>> > These SR predictions violate the rules when
>> > comparing the rates of A and B.
>>
>> No .. they don't. They only violate the nonsense that you made up .. ie
>> that all observers must agree on the comparison of clock rates.
>
>There is no nonsense to what I said....
There is
> The GPS confirm what I said.
You are not consistent in what you say
>Both the gravitational effect and the velocity effect for the GPS obey
>the rules I set forth.
No .. they obey the rules THEY set forth, and which are confirmed
experimentally
>Can you name a real situation that confirm the SR assertion of mutual
>time dilation? I guess not.
Look up the reference material on experimental tests of SR
Inertial
news:f5e6b7bc-42f9-4d2f...@o4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>Hey idiot....the point is both A and B uses the same math to predict
>the rate of each other clock rate and thus you get the bogus concept
>of mutual time dilation.
Why is it bogus if it works?
Inertial
>> >We are not talking about different system observing A and B.
>>
>> Yes .. we are
>
>No we are not...
Yes .. we are. 1) A observing A and B and 2) B observing A and B
You can't count to two
>> > We are
>> > talking about what A predicts the rate of B and what B predicts the
>> > rate of A.
>>
>> That's two systems: A's and B's. You can't even count to two.
>
>The point is A and B must not give the same prediction for each
>other's clock rate as asserted by the boigus concept of mutual time
> dilation....why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
> the rate of two clocks.
No .. it doesn't. The 'rules' only apply to any single frame (system) ..
just like they do when you apply them to velocity (instead of clock rates)
> Also the rules I established are confirmed by
>the GPS.
Mutual time dilation does not apply to the GPS
Daryl McCullough
>Yes, such a theory cannot really deal with that because there is no mention of
>how E and B fields behave. Such a theory does not state if, how ,or why
>physical
>laws would be the same in each inertial frame of reference and there is no
>explanation of the mechanism explaining why clocks and rulers would behave
>according to items (1), (2) and (3). So (1), (2), and (3) are totally ad-hoc in
>nature. That theory also suffers from a number of other problems as well,
>including how to test the unknown mechanisms which supposedly account for (1),
>(2), and (3). Unless there is a way to test for the existence of such ad-hoc
>mechanisms, the `theory' is unscientific by definition.
What I sketched (the theory of the preferred frame) was a toy theory,
to be used to explain how the predictions of SR for various thought
experiments are certainly consistent, whether they are intuitively
plausible or not.
But a theory having ad-hoc rules doesn't make it unscientific. For
a theory to be scientific, it needs to make definite, falsifiable
predictions. It doesn't need to explain everything. If the theory
has mysterious, unexplained, ad-hoc rules, that's *probably* an
indication that the theory is not fundamental, but is instead an
approximation to a more fundamental theory.
Ad hoc theories play a very important role in science. The more
fundamental theories are developed in response to the ad hoc theories,
but almost always the ad hoc theory comes first, and blazes the way.
Some examples: (1) Aether theories were pretty ad hoc, while SR is less
so. I think that the aether theories led to the development of SR.
(2) Bohr's model of the atom was ad hoc, but it led to the development
of quantum mechanics. (3) Gell-Man's 8-fold way model of baryons was
ad-hoc, but it led to the more fundamental quark model. (4) The Fermi
model of weak interactions was ad-hoc, but it led to the
Weinberg-Salaam-Glashow electroweak theory (which was less ad hoc,
but still a little ad hoc, which leads people to look for Grand
Unified Theories that are more fundamental).
Don't knock ad hoc theories as unscientific; they are the humble
scaffolding to be used to build more elegant structures.
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 5, 10:20 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 1/5/11 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> >
>>> > > We are not talking about different system observing A and B. We are
>>> > > talking about what A predicts the rate of B and what B predicts the
>>> > > rate of A.
>> >
>> >
>> > Let ∆t_A be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame
>> > of reference of A, say one second. Let ∆t_A' be A's time interval
>> > as measured by an observer, B.
>> >
>> > Using special relativity
>> > ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A
>> >
>> > Where v is the relative velocity between muon and Earth Surface and
>> > γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >
>> > _________________
>> >
>> > Let ∆t_B be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame
>> > of reference of B, say one second. Let ∆t_B' be B's time interval
>> > as measured by an observer, A.
>> >
>> > Using special relativity
>> > ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B
>> >
>> > Where v is the relative velocity between muon and Earth Surface and
>> > γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
> Hey idiot....the point is both A and B uses the same math to predict
> the rate of each other clock rate and thus you get the bogus concept
> of mutual time dilation.
Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames
Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
VII. CONCLUSION
"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".
Sam Wormley
> The point is A and B must not give the same prediction for each
> other's clock rate as asserted by the boigus concept of mutual time
> dilation....why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
> the GPS.
>
> Ken Seto
kenseto
It is bogus Because all relative clocks run at different
rates.....thus you can't use the same equation for A and B. If you use
the same e
Bruce Richmond
LOL, where were you last month? I agree with what you have written
here, but in another thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/bf1ec3f48e6605b0?hl=en
I wrote:
"It is not as difficult as some make it. The phrasing used by Ben
confuses the issue. A standard clock ticks at a rate of one second
per second in it's rest frame. It is measured to tick at different
rates in frames moving relative to it. Phrases such as "moving clocks
run slow" imply that the clock is somehow different, when in fact you
measure it to run slow because you are using a different coordinate
system in which the clocks making the measurement are synchronized
differently. The key to understanding SR is to keep in mind that each
frame uses its own coordinate system to make measurements, and because
of how those coordinate systems are set up you must use the Lorentz
transformation to translate between the coordinate systems."
I got "corrected" that I was not measuring the moving clock's rate and
that it is not measured to run slow. Some in this group are trying to
redefine a clock's rate to always mean its intrinsic rate as measured
in its rest frame. And I'm not talking about being corrected by some
crank that doesn't understand SR here, I'm talking about being
corrected by the likes of Tom Roberts, shuba, etc. I got into a long
drawn out pissing contest with jem, among others, about clock rates.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/cada42552f34a46c?hl=en&
What make their redefinition all the worse is attitudes like
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/53c1c9b832a146ce?hl=en
quote
PD wrote:
> Yes, if it's the REST frame value that you're going after, agreed.
> The electron's *rest* mass or *invariant* mass is 0.511 MeV.
Tom Roberts wrote:
Sure. But the nomenclature today is that mass is invariant, so your
emphasized
adjectives are redundant: the electron's mass is 0.511 MeV/c^2. Yes,
this value
is invariant, and is therefore the value in its rest frame.
end quote
To me that reads like an argument that the adjectives don't need to be
there because the definition makes it all clear without them. It is
my opinion that adding the adjectives certainly can't hurt, but
leaving them out can. Not using them assumes the student knows the
particular definition the teacher intends to apply, and that he isn't
applying some different definition.
It is particularly funny that mass was used in the example. It was
very confusing when the concept of relativistic mass was taught. It
got to the point that when you were discussing relativity you should
just *know* that mass meant relativistic mass, so the "relativistic"
was omitted. Eventually it was recognized how confusing this was, and
the default meaning of mass became the invariant mass. In the present
situation we have some who wish do redefine "clock rate" to mean
"clock rate in the rest frame of the clock", and they claim this is to
avoid confusion!
Uncle Ben seems to agree with us, but then says it is wrong to mention
that the measured rate is a measured rate.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3e0225fffc9bf3c3?hl=en
"You emphasize that the varying rates or lengths are only MEASURED,
not intrinsic. No wondner the student's first reaction will be, "well,
why don't they measure it differently if the usual measurement is not
correct?"
Enough for now.
Bruce Richmond
kenseto
Each observer go by the same rules and only one of those rule is valid
for each observer. That means that the concept of mutual time dilation
is invalidated by each observer.
>
> > Also the rules I established are confirmed by
> >the GPS.
>
> Mutual time dilation does not apply to the GPS
Mutual time dilation does not apply to any situation. All relative
clock accumulate different amount of clock seconds between any two
events.
Sam Wormley
>
> It is bogus Because all relative clocks run at different
> rates.....thus you can't use the same equation for A and B. If you use
> the same e
Assuming same gravitational wells, all identical clocks run at
the same rate. An observer with relative motion measures that
rate as time dilated and special relativity predicts the measurement
outcome.
Let ∆t be the clock rate. Let ∆t' be the measured clock rate. Then
∆t' = ∆t/γ
Where v is the relative velocity between observer and clock and
γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
Sam Wormley
> Mutual time dilation does not apply to any situation. All relative
> clock accumulate different amount of clock seconds between any two
> events.
Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
kenseto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 7, 6:59=A0am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 6, 10:02=A0am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 6, 8:49=A0am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > .why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
> >> > > the rate of two clocks.
>
> >> > Your problem, Ken, is that you think the laws of physics must respect
> >> > some fictional "rules of logic". They do not.
>
> >> I got no problem....it is you who got problem. You guys invented
> >> epicycles upon epicycles to make nature to fit SR....this is wrong.
>
> >No epicycles. Detailed experimental measurement, Ken, which you're
> >unfortunately poorly informed about. This isn't made up. Nature tells
> >us what the rules are.
>
> As I pointed out in a post a year ago, here's a formulation of a theory
> that many SR dissenters seem to be comfortable with---they may not
> think it is true, but they tend to believe that it is at least
> consistent:
No it is consistent only for one of the observers but not for both
observer F and F'.
>
> The theory of the preferred frame:
>
> There is a preferred inertial frame F (with an associated inertial
> coordinate system (x,y,z,t)) such that:
>
> 1. As measured in this frame, light travels at speed c in
> every direction, independent of the motion of the source.
> That is: it travels so that dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt are all constant,
> and square-root((dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2) = c.
>
> 2. As measured in this frame, a standard clock moving at speed v
> relative to this frame has elapsed time T that advances according
> to dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
>
> 3. As measured in this frame, a standard measuring rod that is
> moving at speed v relative to this frame in the direction of its
> length has a length given by L(v) = L_0 square-root(1-(v/c)^2),
> where L_0 is the length of an identically constructed rod at
> rest in the frame.
>
> I think that most people would believe that this theory is
> at least consistent, if not true. But the predictions of SR
> are *identical* with this theory (at least as far as thought
> experiments involving rods and clocks and twins is concerned).
es the PoR allows every SR observer to use the preferred frame F to do
physics.
> You can prove from 1-3 that if F is the preferred frame,
> and F' is any other inertial frame, then there is a coordinate
> system x',y',z',t' such that 1-3 all hold for frame F' using
> those coordinates.
This is redundant...The PoR allows F' to use the F frame to do
physics.
Ken Seto
>
> --
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
No idiot there is no relativty of simultaneity....there is only
absolute simultaneity....however, a pair of events will take a
different clock time interval to complete in different ferames. The
reason is that a clock second in different frames contains a different
amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
>
> See:http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>
> VII. CONCLUSION
>
> "This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
> students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
> role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
> physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
> unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
> whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
> the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
> simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
> the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
> of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
> observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
> of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
> confront the startling ideas of special relativity".- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
> On 1/6/11 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > The point is A and B must not give the same prediction for each
> > other's clock rate as asserted by the boigus concept of mutual time
> > dilation....why? because it violate the rules of logic when comparing
> > the rate of two clocks. Also the rules I established are confirmed by
> > the GPS.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
> and reference frames
Wormy it is you who have problem understanding SR.
Sam Wormley
Your response is that of a person confused about simultaneity and
reference frames. You would not make it in a college course that deals
with relativity. According to you all the academics, the textbooks and
the theory of relativity are wrong. Unfortunately, it is you who never
learned relativity theory.
Don't you care, even a little bit?