Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Next: The REAL reason they hate Einstein.
From: eric gisse on 30 Oct 2009 22:16 kenseto wrote: > On Oct 30, 11:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute >> > Motion" is availble in the following link: >> >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf >> >> > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect >> > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the >> > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained >> > by absolute motion. >> >> > Ken Seto >> >> The concept of absolute motion requires an absolute reference >> frame and physics doesn't need one nor does any exist. It's all >> in your head, Seto. >> >> I've tried to clarify the language below for you, Seto, so that >> you will see neither A or B is preferred or special in any way. >> >> Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they >> tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have relative >> motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v > 0, >> and that dv/dt = 0 . >> >> Disregarding any Doppler shift, A measures B's time dilation as >> ?t_B' = ? ?t_B > > Hey idiot I already told you that this is wrong. A predicts that B's > time is retarded as follows: > Delta(t_B') = gamma*Delta(t_A) > OR > Delta(t_B') = Delta(t_A)/gamma Show us how you obtain this prediction. <watches as Ken copies from his high school physics book> > > Ken Seto > >> >> and B measures A's time dilation as >> ?t_A' = ? ?t_A >> >> where ?t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity >> between A and B, and ? = 1/?(1-v^2/c^2) .
From: BURT on 30 Oct 2009 22:51 On Oct 30, 7:16 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Oct 30, 11:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >> > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute > >> > Motion" is availble in the following link: > >> >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > >> > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect > >> > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the > >> > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained > >> > by absolute motion. > > >> > Ken Seto > > >> The concept of absolute motion requires an absolute reference > >> frame and physics doesn't need one nor does any exist. It's all > >> in your head, Seto. > > >> I've tried to clarify the language below for you, Seto, so that > >> you will see neither A or B is preferred or special in any way. > > >> Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they > >> tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have relative > >> motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v > 0, > >> and that dv/dt = 0 . > > >> Disregarding any Doppler shift, A measures B's time dilation as > >> ?t_B' = ? ?t_B > > > Hey idiot I already told you that this is wrong. A predicts that B's > > time is retarded as follows: > > Delta(t_B') = gamma*Delta(t_A) > > OR > > Delta(t_B') = Delta(t_A)/gamma > > Show us how you obtain this prediction. > > <watches as Ken copies from his high school physics book> > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > >> and B measures A's time dilation as > >> ?t_A' = ? ?t_A > > >> where ?t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > >> between A and B, and ? = 1/?(1-v^2/c^2) .- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Different things working together are All Order in the Aether. Atoms light and the immaterial in the aether is where this order is at. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 31 Oct 2009 09:47 On Oct 30, 8:06 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > Hey idiot I already told you that this is wrong. A predicts that B's > > time is retarded as follows: > > Delta(t_B') = gamma*Delta(t_A) > > OR > > Delta(t_B') = Delta(t_A)/gamma > > Using your equation > > Delta(t_A)/gamma = Delta(t_B') = gamma*Delta(t_A) > > Delta(t_A)/gamma = gamma*Delta(t_A) > > 1/gamma = gamma No idiot if the observed clock is running sow you use the factor of 1/ gamma and if the observed clock is running fast you use the factor of gamma. > > gamma = 1 > > And you think I'm an idiot? Yes you are an idiot. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 31 Oct 2009 09:52 On Oct 30, 5:54 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute > > Motion" is availble in the following link: > >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect > > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the > > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained > > by absolute motion. > > Really Ken? The photoelectric effect and the double slit experiment? Hey idiot why don't you read the paper before you shoot off your foul mouth??? http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 31 Oct 2009 10:20
On Oct 30, 10:16 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Oct 30, 11:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >> > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute > >> > Motion" is availble in the following link: > >> >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > >> > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect > >> > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the > >> > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained > >> > by absolute motion. > > >> > Ken Seto > > >> The concept of absolute motion requires an absolute reference > >> frame and physics doesn't need one nor does any exist. It's all > >> in your head, Seto. > > >> I've tried to clarify the language below for you, Seto, so that > >> you will see neither A or B is preferred or special in any way. > > >> Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they > >> tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have relative > >> motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v > 0, > >> and that dv/dt = 0 . > > >> Disregarding any Doppler shift, A measures B's time dilation as > >> ?t_B' = ? ?t_B > > > Hey idiot I already told you that this is wrong. A predicts that B's > > time is retarded as follows: > > Delta(t_B') = gamma*Delta(t_A) > > OR > > Delta(t_B') = Delta(t_A)/gamma > > Show us how you obtain this prediction. In IRT a clock moving wrt the observer can run slow or fast compared to the observer's clock. > > <watches as Ken copies from his high school physics book> > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > >> and B measures A's time dilation as > >> ?t_A' = ? ?t_A > > >> where ?t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > >> between A and B, and ? = 1/?(1-v^2/c^2) .- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |