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: kenseto on 4 Nov 2009 10:15 On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:4f7c47f6-3a44-4662-9f92-84546f9ab0fc(a)l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a(a)15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> kenseto wrote: > >> >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run > >> >> >> >> >> fast, > >> >> >> >> >> just due to relative velocity? > > >> >> >> >> > If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the > >> >> >> >> > observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's > >> >> >> >> > clock > >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> >> > a preferred frame....we know that is not the case. > > >> >> >> >> Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in > >> >> >> >> relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be > >> >> >> >> true for almost all observer. None of them is special or > >> >> >> >> preferred. > > >> >> >> > Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether > >> >> >> > frame > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same > >> >> >> > math....they > >> >> >> > both use the ether frame to do calculations.. > > >> >> >> WRONG > > >> >> >> > The fact that every SR > >> >> >> > observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow > >> >> >> > means > >> >> >> > that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of > >> >> >> > absolute > >> >> >> > rest. > > >> >> >> WRONG > > >> >> >> You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics > >> >> >> again > >> >> >> .. > >> >> >> but this time stay awake during the lessons. > > >> >> > Hey idiot ....it is not wrong. > > >> >> Yes, it IS wrong > > >> >> > SR says that all observer are > >> >> > equaivalent including the ether frame observer. > > >> >> SR says nothing about any ether frame. > > >> > So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent... > > >> They are. All inertial ones that is. > > >> > that does not include > >> > the rest frame of the ether??? > > >> What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it > >> had > >> such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was > >> inertial, > >> then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR is > >> concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and you've > >> just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special treatment. > >> Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it doesn't > >> need > >> to- > > > The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties: > > There is no evidence that there is any thing Sure there is evidence....the fields are stresses in the aether. > > > 1. The ether frame clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. > > Nope. But every inertial frame measures clocks in other frames as running > slower No such measurement is made. Every SR observer predicts that the clock moving wrt the observer is running slow. > > > 2. The ether frame meter stick is the longest meter stick in the > > universe. > > Nope. But every inertial frame measures lengths in other frames as > contracted No such measurement is made. SR predicts a meter stick moving wrt the observer is contracted. > > > Every SR observer assumes these excvlusive special properties of the > > ether frame > > The properties of an inertial frame have nothing to do with ether frames Hey idiot...Calling the ether frame as an inertial frames does not eliminate the ether frame. > > > and thus every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in > > the ether. > > Nope .. he doesn't assume anything about an aether. There is no aether > mentioned in SR SR assumes that the inertial frame is the ether frame and that's why an inertial frame has all the properties of the ether frame. > > > That's exactly what a LET observer assumes and that's why > > SR and LET have the same math. > > Nope. You're just totally ignorant You are a runt of the SRians. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 4 Nov 2009 17:58 <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:7cc9cc58-0eeb-402a-ab4c-3f16752a4dc4(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4f7c47f6-3a44-4662-9f92-84546f9ab0fc(a)l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a(a)15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> kenseto wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run >> >> >> >> >> >> fast, >> >> >> >> >> >> just due to relative velocity? >> >> >> >> >> >> > If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's >> >> >> >> >> > clock >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> >> > a preferred frame....we know that is not the case. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> relative motion would appear to run slower... That would >> >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> >> true for almost all observer. None of them is special or >> >> >> >> >> preferred. >> >> >> >> >> > Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether >> >> >> >> > frame >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> > make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same >> >> >> >> > math....they >> >> >> >> > both use the ether frame to do calculations.. >> >> >> >> >> WRONG >> >> >> >> >> > The fact that every SR >> >> >> >> > observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running >> >> >> >> > slow >> >> >> >> > means >> >> >> >> > that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of >> >> >> >> > absolute >> >> >> >> > rest. >> >> >> >> >> WRONG >> >> >> >> >> You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take >> >> >> >> physics >> >> >> >> again >> >> >> >> .. >> >> >> >> but this time stay awake during the lessons. >> >> >> >> > Hey idiot ....it is not wrong. >> >> >> >> Yes, it IS wrong >> >> >> >> > SR says that all observer are >> >> >> > equaivalent including the ether frame observer. >> >> >> >> SR says nothing about any ether frame. >> >> >> > So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent... >> >> >> They are. All inertial ones that is. >> >> >> > that does not include >> >> > the rest frame of the ether??? >> >> >> What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it >> >> had >> >> such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was >> >> inertial, >> >> then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR >> >> is >> >> concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and >> >> you've >> >> just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special >> >> treatment. >> >> Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it >> >> doesn't >> >> need >> >> to- >> >> > The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties: >> >> There is no evidence that there is any thing > > Sure there is evidence....the fields are stresses in the aether. There is no evidence that there is any such thing as aether for there to be stresses in >> > 1. The ether frame clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. >> >> Nope. But every inertial frame measures clocks in other frames as >> running >> slower > > No such measurement is made. Wrong > Every SR observer predicts that the clock > moving wrt the observer is running slow. And that is what is measured. >> > 2. The ether frame meter stick is the longest meter stick in the >> > universe. >> >> Nope. But every inertial frame measures lengths in other frames as >> contracted > > No such measurement is made. Only because it is not practical to do so directly. > SR predicts a meter stick moving wrt the > observer is contracted. And that is what you would find if you could accurately do the measurement >> > Every SR observer assumes these excvlusive special properties of the >> > ether frame >> >> The properties of an inertial frame have nothing to do with ether frames > > Hey idiot...Calling the ether frame as an inertial frames does not > eliminate the ether frame. There needs to be a fixed ether for there to be an ether frame. There is no evidence of such a thing. >> > and thus every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in >> > the ether. >> >> Nope .. he doesn't assume anything about an aether. There is no aether >> mentioned in SR > > SR assumes that the inertial frame is the ether frame No .. it says nothing about ether > and that's why > an inertial frame has all the properties of the ether frame. Nope You're just so wrong, its hilarious >> > That's exactly what a LET observer assumes and that's why >> > SR and LET have the same math. >> >> Nope. You're just totally ignorant > > You are a runt of the SRians. That, of course, is what ken says when he is beaten Glad to see I (and science) has won yet again. Aren't you tired of being such a loser? You should get a new hobby.
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Nov 2009 00:57 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 Notice what happens to A and B, Ken! http://xkcd.com/265/
From: kenseto on 6 Nov 2009 09:14 On Nov 5, 12:57 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 > > Notice what happens to A and B, Ken! > http://xkcd.com/265/ Wormy you are loosing it I urge that you go see a doctor immediately. There is no mutual time dilation. When comparing two clocks: if A's clock is running fast compared to B's clock then B's clock is running slow compared to A's clock. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 6 Nov 2009 09:16
On Nov 4, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:7cc9cc58-0eeb-402a-ab4c-3f16752a4dc4(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:4f7c47f6-3a44-4662-9f92-84546f9ab0fc(a)l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a(a)15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> kenseto wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> > >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run > >> >> >> >> >> >> fast, > >> >> >> >> >> >> just due to relative velocity? > > >> >> >> >> >> > If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's > >> >> >> >> >> > clock > >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> >> >> > a preferred frame....we know that is not the case. > > >> >> >> >> >> Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks > >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> relative motion would appear to run slower... That would > >> >> >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >> >> true for almost all observer. None of them is special or > >> >> >> >> >> preferred. > > >> >> >> >> > Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether > >> >> >> >> > frame > >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> > make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same > >> >> >> >> > math....they > >> >> >> >> > both use the ether frame to do calculations.. > > >> >> >> >> WRONG > > >> >> >> >> > The fact that every SR > >> >> >> >> > observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running > >> >> >> >> > slow > >> >> >> >> > means > >> >> >> >> > that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of > >> >> >> >> > absolute > >> >> >> >> > rest. > > >> >> >> >> WRONG > > >> >> >> >> You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take > >> >> >> >> physics > >> >> >> >> again > >> >> >> >> .. > >> >> >> >> but this time stay awake during the lessons. > > >> >> >> > Hey idiot ....it is not wrong. > > >> >> >> Yes, it IS wrong > > >> >> >> > SR says that all observer are > >> >> >> > equaivalent including the ether frame observer. > > >> >> >> SR says nothing about any ether frame. > > >> >> > So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent... > > >> >> They are. All inertial ones that is. > > >> >> > that does not include > >> >> > the rest frame of the ether??? > > >> >> What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it > >> >> had > >> >> such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was > >> >> inertial, > >> >> then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR > >> >> is > >> >> concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and > >> >> you've > >> >> just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special > >> >> treatment. > >> >> Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it > >> >> doesn't > >> >> need > >> >> to- > > >> > The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties: > > >> There is no evidence that there is any thing > > > Sure there is evidence....the fields are stresses in the aether. > > There is no evidence that there is any such thing as aether for there to be > stresses in Sure there is....without the ether there is no stress in space. > > >> > 1. The ether frame clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. > > >> Nope. But every inertial frame measures clocks in other frames as > >> running > >> slower > > > No such measurement is made. > > Wrong > > > Every SR observer predicts that the clock > > moving wrt the observer is running slow. > > And that is what is measured. > > >> > 2. The ether frame meter stick is the longest meter stick in the > >> > universe. > > >> Nope. But every inertial frame measures lengths in other frames as > >> contracted > > > No such measurement is made. > > Only because it is not practical to do so directly. > > > SR predicts a meter stick moving wrt the > > observer is contracted. > > And that is what you would find if you could accurately do the measurement > > >> > Every SR observer assumes these excvlusive special properties of the > >> > ether frame > > >> The properties of an inertial frame have nothing to do with ether frames > > > Hey idiot...Calling the ether frame as an inertial frames does not > > eliminate the ether frame. > > There needs to be a fixed ether for there to be an ether frame. There is no > evidence of such a thing. > > >> > and thus every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in > >> > the ether. > > >> Nope .. he doesn't assume anything about an aether. There is no aether > >> mentioned in SR > > > SR assumes that the inertial frame is the ether frame > > No .. it says nothing about ether > > > and that's why > > an inertial frame has all the properties of the ether frame. > > Nope > > You're just so wrong, its hilarious > > >> > That's exactly what a LET observer assumes and that's why > >> > SR and LET have the same math. > > >> Nope. You're just totally ignorant > > > You are a runt of the SRians. > > That, of course, is what ken says when he is beaten > > Glad to see I (and science) has won yet again. Aren't you tired of being > such a loser? You should get a new hobby.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |