SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 14 May 2010 14:20 On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > closing speed even is? > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. Observed relative velocity and direction of relative velocity by the track observer (M) has absolutely no effect on the closing speeds of light fronts from the ends of the train to the train observer as Einstein asserted. Ken Seto > > > The > > speed of light is isotropic and the speed of light is independent of > > the motions of the sources. > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different things. > > > > > You are so stupid. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > RoS is bogus because it asserts that M > > > > detects different closing speeds from different directions. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > What if the gedanken set up is changed as follows: > > > > > > > M' sees the light fronts from the ends of the train arrive at him > > > > > > > simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the ends of the train. > > > > > > > Therefore he concluded that the flashes happened simultaneously. > > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > > Does M see the flashes arrive at him simultaneously? According to RoS > > > > > > > the answer is no. > > > > > > > That's correct. > > > > > > > > But according to the SR postulaTE THE ANSWER IS YES. > > > > > > > No, the SR postulate would not say that. > > > > > > > Good Jiminy Jumping Jacks, you are hopeless. I've never seen anyone so > > > > > > thick in my whole life, and I've seen a good number of thick students. > > > > > > > > What this mean is that closing speed as perceived by M has no effect > > > > > > > on the istropy of the speed of light. > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two different quantities. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > >...due to the closing > > > > > > > > > > > speed between the moving observer and the light fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the problem, Ken. You don't know enough relativity to know who > > > > > > > > > > > > here understands it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong I know more of relativyt than all of you runts of the SRians. > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, you don't. You are living a fantasy life, detached from > > > > > > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > > > What you know is some stuff that you guys made up to explain > > > > > > > > > contradictory claims. For example: A predicts B's clock is running > > > > > > > > > slow and B predicts that A's clock is running slow, The speed of light > > > > > > > > > is constant because it is measured with the speed of light, The bug is > > > > > > > > > dead and alive at the same time, the pole is able to fit into the barn > > > > > > > > > and the pole is not able to fit into the barn....etc,etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to formulate a complete theory of relativty that > > > > > > > > > > > includes SR and LET as subsets. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > >When you run into two people that say > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, you can't tell who is right and who is wrong. If you > > > > > > > > > > > > mistakenly label BOTH of them as "relativists", then you're going to > > > > > > > > > > > > come to the mistaken impression that relativity is contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, the problem is that you're hanging around in a venue where > > > > > > > > > > > > good information is mixed with bullshit, rather than looking to see > > > > > > > > > > > > what SR really says in a book where there is no bullshit mixed in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want a set of statements about what SR says that are free from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictions, then you need to read A BOOK about relativity. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how you will see that SR has no contradictions in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is that all SR books give the same wrong interpretations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You wouldn't know, Ken, because you haven't read any books on > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. Not one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example an inertial frame is not the same as an absolute frame, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light is a universal constant instead of a constant math > > > > > > > > > > > > > ratio, a clock second is a universal interval of time and at the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > time claims that the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not > > > > > > > > > > > > > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame, in the bug > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the rivet paradox and from the rivet point of view the bug is > > > > > > > > > > > > > already dead just before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > hole and at the same time from the hole point of view the bug is still > > > > > > > > > > > > > alive just befoore the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole, in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the barn and the pole paradox from the- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: Sam Wormley on 14 May 2010 14:56 On 5/14/10 9:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > No....A predicts that his 1 second is worth 1/gamma second on the B > clock. From B's point of view he predicts that 1 of his clock second > is worth gamma second on the A clock. Let me splain it to ya, Seto. First, let's be a bit more precise: Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they tick at the same rate when together. Now let us suppose that A and B have relative motion, such that their velocity (closing or opening) with respect to each other is, v > 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . Correcting for any Doppler shift, A measures B's time interval as ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B and B measures A's time interval as ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . Therefore, A measures B's time interval to be longer than her own. And B measures A's time interval to be longer than his own.
From: Michael Moroney on 14 May 2010 15:17 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On May 13, 11:41 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Sorry A predicts B's time interval for an inertval of delta(t_A) in >> >his frame as follows: >> >delta(t_B)= delta(t_A)/gamma_a >> >Sorry B predicts A's time interval for an inertval of delta(t_B) in >> >his frame as follows: >> >delta(t_A)= delta(t_B)/gamma_b >> >> Neither is what SR states. SR states: >> delta(t') = gamma*delta(t). delta(t) is a local event (A observing a >> tick of the second hand of A's watch or whatever) >Yes A observed the elapse of 1 second on his clock. >> >> delta(t') is the *same* event as observed by another observer (B) moving >> at relative velocity v, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). >No....A predicts that his 1 second is worth 1/gamma second on the B >clock. From B's point of view he predicts that 1 of his clock second >is worth gamma second on the A clock. A predicts she'll see B's clock tick at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), where delta(t) is a time interval local to B (B's watch's second hand) computes gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and observes that she'll see B's clock as slow as well. "Isn't that interesting. Even though B sees my clock as running slow, I see B's clock as running slow." >> >> Since there is the constraint that v<c, gamma *must* be a real number >> greater than or equal to 1, so delta(t') is *always* greater than >> delta(t). =A0In other words, *every* observer moving relative to A >> will see A's clock as slowed. >Yes gamma is always greater than 1. But no it is wrong to assert that >every observer moving wrt A will see A's clock as slowed...an observer >on A can only conclude that it is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma >or it is running fast by a factor of gamma. This is contradictory. If gamma is always greater than or equal to 1, and, according to SR, all moving observers observe A's clock as moving at the rate of gamma*their clock rate, then all moving observers *must* see A's clock as running slow. Your bit about "running slow by a factor of 1/gamma" is your own creation, and not part of SR, but something that exists only in your own mind. For someone who claims to know more about SR than anyone else here, you sure don't understand SR. >> There is simply no (non-imaginary) velocity v that can result in a value >> for gamma < 1. Therefore it is impossible for an observer to see >> another's clock as running fast due to SR effects. >I didn't say that there was. So the only possible conclusion is that any observer will see the clock in another relatively moving frame as running slow.
From: PD on 14 May 2010 15:40 On May 14, 1:20 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > > closing speed even is? > > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? > > No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. I'm sorry, Ken, but this game can only go so far. If the whole world understands what the term "zebra" means, and you are the only one that points to a penguin and calls it a zebra, then you are the one that does not know what "zebra" means. If the whole world understands what the term "closing speed" means, and you are the only that confuses it with light speed, then you are the one that does not know what "closing speed" means. Someday, you're just going to have to accept the fact that there are things you do not understand, and there are some things you are wrong about. When you can do this without feeling like your ego has been shredded, then you have a chance at making a positive contribution. > Observed relative > velocity and direction of relative velocity by the track observer (M) > has absolutely no effect on the closing speeds of light fronts from > the ends of the train to the train observer as Einstein asserted. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > The > > > speed of light is isotropic and the speed of light is independent of > > > the motions of the sources. > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different things. > > > > You are so stupid. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > RoS is bogus because it asserts that M > > > > > detects different closing speeds from different directions. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > What if the gedanken set up is changed as follows: > > > > > > > > M' sees the light fronts from the ends of the train arrive at him > > > > > > > > simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the ends of the train. > > > > > > > > Therefore he concluded that the flashes happened simultaneously. > > > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > > > Does M see the flashes arrive at him simultaneously? According to RoS > > > > > > > > the answer is no. > > > > > > > > That's correct. > > > > > > > > > But according to the SR postulaTE THE ANSWER IS YES. > > > > > > > > No, the SR postulate would not say that. > > > > > > > > Good Jiminy Jumping Jacks, you are hopeless. I've never seen anyone so > > > > > > > thick in my whole life, and I've seen a good number of thick students. > > > > > > > > > What this mean is that closing speed as perceived by M has no effect > > > > > > > > on the istropy of the speed of light. > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two different quantities. > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > >...due to the closing > > > > > > > > > > > > speed between the moving observer and the light fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the problem, Ken. You don't know enough relativity to know who > > > > > > > > > > > > > here understands it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong I know more of relativyt than all of you runts of the SRians. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, you don't. You are living a fantasy life, detached from > > > > > > > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > > > > What you know is some stuff that you guys made up to explain > > > > > > > > > > contradictory claims. For example: A predicts B's clock is running > > > > > > > > > > slow and B predicts that A's clock is running slow, The speed of light > > > > > > > > > > is constant because it is measured with the speed of light, The bug is > > > > > > > > > > dead and alive at the same time, the pole is able to fit into the barn > > > > > > > > > > and the pole is not able to fit into the barn....etc,etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to formulate a complete theory of relativty that > > > > > > > > > > > > includes SR and LET as subsets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > >When you run into two people that say > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, you can't tell who is right and who is wrong. If you > > > > > > > > > > > > > mistakenly label BOTH of them as "relativists", then you're going to > > > > > > > > > > > > > come to the mistaken impression that relativity is contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, the problem is that you're hanging around in a venue where > > > > > > > > > > > > > good information is mixed with bullshit, rather than looking to see > > > > > > > > > > > > > what SR really says in a book where there is no bullshit mixed in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want a set of statements about what SR says that are free from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictions, then you need to read A BOOK about relativity. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how you will see that SR has no contradictions in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is that all SR books give the same wrong interpretations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You wouldn't know, Ken, because you haven't read any books on > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. Not one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example an inertial frame is not the same as an absolute frame, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light is a universal constant instead of a constant math > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ratio, a clock second is a universal interval of time and at > > ... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 15 May 2010 18:18
On May 14, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 1:20 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet.. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > > > closing speed even is? > > > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? > > > No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this game can only go so far. Here's why you don't understand what closing velocity means: According to Einstein in his train gedanken he said that M' is at equal distance from the ends of the train and he is moving (closing velocities)wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train that means that the speed of light in the M' frame cannot be isotropic in the M' frame. That means that the bogus conept of RoS is refuted by the SR postulate. Ken Seto > If the whole world understands what the term "zebra" means, and you > are the only one that points to a penguin and calls it a zebra, then > you are the one that does not know what "zebra" means. > If the whole world understands what the term "closing speed" means, > and you are the only that confuses it with light speed, then you are > the one that does not know what "closing speed" means. > > Someday, you're just going to have to accept the fact that there are > things you do not understand, and there are some things you are wrong > about. When you can do this without feeling like your ego has been > shredded, then you have a chance at making a positive contribution. > > > > > Observed relative > > velocity and direction of relative velocity by the track observer (M) > > has absolutely no effect on the closing speeds of light fronts from > > the ends of the train to the train observer as Einstein asserted. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > The > > > > speed of light is isotropic and the speed of light is independent of > > > > the motions of the sources. > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different things. > > > > > You are so stupid. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > RoS is bogus because it asserts that M > > > > > > detects different closing speeds from different directions. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > What if the gedanken set up is changed as follows: > > > > > > > > > M' sees the light fronts from the ends of the train arrive at him > > > > > > > > > simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the ends of the train. > > > > > > > > > Therefore he concluded that the flashes happened simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > > > > Does M see the flashes arrive at him simultaneously? According to RoS > > > > > > > > > the answer is no. > > > > > > > > > That's correct. > > > > > > > > > > But according to the SR postulaTE THE ANSWER IS YES. > > > > > > > > > No, the SR postulate would not say that. > > > > > > > > > Good Jiminy Jumping Jacks, you are hopeless. I've never seen anyone so > > > > > > > > thick in my whole life, and I've seen a good number of thick students. > > > > > > > > > > What this mean is that closing speed as perceived by M has no effect > > > > > > > > > on the istropy of the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > >...due to the closing > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed between the moving observer and the light fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the problem, Ken. You don't know enough relativity to know who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here understands it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong I know more of relativyt than all of you runts of the SRians. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, you don't. You are living a fantasy life, detached from > > > > > > > > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > What you know is some stuff that you guys made up to explain > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory claims. For example: A predicts B's clock is running > > > > > > > > > > > slow and B predicts that A's clock is running slow, The speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > is constant because it is measured with the speed of light, The bug is > > > > > > > > > > > dead and alive at the same time, the pole is able to fit into the barn > > > > > > > > > > > and the pole is not able to fit into the barn....etc,etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to formulate a complete theory of relativty that > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes SR and LET as subsets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >When you run into two people that say > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, you can't tell who is right and who is wrong. If you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mistakenly label BOTH of them as "relativists", then you're going to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > come to the mistaken impression that relativity is contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, the- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » |