Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 May 2010 06:17 On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 29, 8:03�am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> On May 28, 11:44�am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >> >> Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be >> falsified, by definition, is not scientific. > >I didn't say relativity wasn't falsifiable. It is certainly >falsifiable, and a number of tests have been performed in that >attempt. >I asked why the OP felt the NEED to disprove relativity. ....because the Einsteinian version has brought physics almost to a standstill. >> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. A theory makes >> > predictions of measurable quantities -- that is, what will be measured >> > under certain circumstances -- and then you go make the measurement. >> > If they measurement disagrees with the prediction, then the theory is >> > disproven. >> >> The point is: if you use rubber seconds and rubber ruler the >> predictions of SR can agree with observations. > >Rulers are rulers and clocks are clocks. The standards for rulers and >clocks are all pretty clear and documented at NIST. A ruler DEFINES and absolute and universal spatial inteval. The period of an oscillator DEFINES an absolute and universal time interval. >> That's why SR is not >> falsifiable. > >Eh? So if a theory makes predictions that agree with observations, >then it is not falsifiable, and therefore it is not a scientific >theory? Sagnac falsifies SR. Fizeau falsifies SR. Variable star curves falsify SR. What more do you want? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: kenseto on 30 May 2010 08:51 On May 29, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 8:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 28, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 10:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 6:09 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > > > > > I would like a relativist to explain why the distance term ct is imaginary in > > > > > 4D 'spacetime'. > > > > > > Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's > > > > > imagination? > > > > > SR uses a rubber meter stick (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second) to > > > > measure length and rubber second a rubber second to measure > > > > time.....as such it cannot not be disproved. > > > > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? > > > Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be > > falsified, by definition, is not scientific. > > I didn't say relativity wasn't falsifiable. It is certainly > falsifiable, and a number of tests have been performed in that > attempt. > I asked why the OP felt the NEED to disprove relativity. No idiot....I said that relativity cannot be disproved (or falsified)....because you SRians invented rubber ruler to measure length and rubber second to measure time. > > > > > > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. A theory makes > > > predictions of measurable quantities -- that is, what will be measured > > > under certain circumstances -- and then you go make the measurement. > > > If they measurement disagrees with the prediction, then the theory is > > > disproven. > > > The point is: if you use rubber seconds and rubber ruler the > > predictions of SR can agree with observations. > > Rulers are rulers and clocks are clocks. The standards for rulers and > clocks are all pretty clear and documented at NIST. The point is: the new rubber standards for the meter and the clock seconds are invented to make SR not falsifiable. Ken Seto > > > That's why SR is not > > falsifiable. > > Eh? So if a theory makes predictions that agree with observations, > then it is not falsifiable, and therefore it is not a scientific > theory? > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Definition for a rubber second: Every SR observer assumes that his > > > > clock second is a standard unit of time and yet at the same time the > > > > passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the > > > > passage of a clock second in B's frame. What this mean is that a clock > > > > second in different frame have different duration (different time > > > > content). > > > > What you THINK a term is defined as, and what it REALLY is defined as, > > > are two completely different things. You haven't caught onto that yet..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: eric gisse on 30 May 2010 16:23 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On May 29, 8:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >>> On May 28, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >>> >>> Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be >>> falsified, by definition, is not scientific. >> >>I didn't say relativity wasn't falsifiable. It is certainly >>falsifiable, and a number of tests have been performed in that >>attempt. >>I asked why the OP felt the NEED to disprove relativity. > > ...because the Einsteinian version has brought physics almost to a > standstill. So you are of the opinion that science and technology today is essentially where it was at in 1904? Are you retarded? > >>> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. A theory makes >>> > predictions of measurable quantities -- that is, what will be measured >>> > under certain circumstances -- and then you go make the measurement. >>> > If they measurement disagrees with the prediction, then the theory is >>> > disproven. >>> >>> The point is: if you use rubber seconds and rubber ruler the >>> predictions of SR can agree with observations. >> >>Rulers are rulers and clocks are clocks. The standards for rulers and >>clocks are all pretty clear and documented at NIST. > > A ruler DEFINES and absolute and universal spatial inteval. How do you know? > The period of an oscillator DEFINES an absolute and universal time > interval. Reality clearly indicates otherwise. Is there a reason you know better? > >>> That's why SR is not >>> falsifiable. >> >>Eh? So if a theory makes predictions that agree with observations, >>then it is not falsifiable, and therefore it is not a scientific >>theory? > > Sagnac falsifies SR. Fizeau falsifies SR. Variable star curves falsify SR. > What more do you want? Something not based on delusions? None of those experiments/observations falsify SR, you blithering idiot. > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 May 2010 17:46 On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 29, 12:13�am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 28, 8:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >> >> It is not a need to but what experiment shows. �<shrug> > >Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a >prediction of relativity? > >> >> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. >> >> Yes, it is. �Just go back to the null results of the MMX. �<shrug> > >Relativity predicts null results in the MMX. Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null result. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 May 2010 17:55
On Sun, 30 May 2010 05:51:58 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >On May 29, 9:49�am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 29, 8:03�am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 28, 11:44�am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On May 28, 10:37�am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On May 25, 6:09�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> > > > > I would like a relativist to explain why the distance term ct is imaginary in >> > > > > 4D 'spacetime'. >> >> > > > > Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's >> > > > > imagination? � >> >> > > > SR uses a rubber meter stick (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second) to >> > > > measure length and rubber second a rubber second to measure >> > > > time.....as such it cannot not be disproved. >> >> > > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >> >> > Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be >> > falsified, by definition, is not scientific. >> >> I didn't say relativity wasn't falsifiable. It is certainly >> falsifiable, and a number of tests have been performed in that >> attempt. >> I asked why the OP felt the NEED to disprove relativity. > >No idiot....I said that relativity cannot be disproved (or >falsified)....because you SRians invented rubber ruler to measure >length and rubber second to measure time. > >> >> >> >> > > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. A theory makes >> > > predictions of measurable quantities -- that is, what will be measured >> > > under certain circumstances -- and then you go make the measurement. >> > > If they measurement disagrees with the prediction, then the theory is >> > > disproven. >> >> > The point is: if you use rubber seconds and rubber ruler the >> > predictions of SR can agree with observations. >> >> Rulers are rulers and clocks are clocks. The standards for rulers and >> clocks are all pretty clear and documented at NIST. > >The point is: the new rubber standards for the meter and the clock >seconds are invented to make SR not falsifiable. .....and, "if the clocks don't give the required answer, just change their readings"....Einstein 1905 >Ken Seto Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |