From: Inertial on
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bydnUH_yqjTLW3WnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d(a)mchsi.com...
> On 5/16/10 7:20 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> What are you saying here? are you saying that the t' clock predicts
>> that the t clock is slow?? if that's what you are saying then it is
>> wrong. The t' clock must predict that the t clock is running faster
>> than the t' clock.
>>
>
> You know, Seto, we've been over this many times over the years and
> you still can seem to understand the fact relativity is relative.
> How could your parent raise you to be this way? Please look at the
> following carefully.
>
> 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. Who's
> clock measures slow is observer dependent. Seto do you know what
> observer dependent means?

Seto will, of course, claim that we've never verified BOTH of these
simultaneously in an experiment.

He'll gloss over the fact that what you says is (despite his protests) what
SR actually predicts.

He will then go on to claim that his IRT is a superset of SR, even though it
does *not* make all the same predictions/explanations that SR does .. which,
of course, invalidates it as a superset.

He'll gloss over that (unlike SR) his theory is inconsistent and
self-contradictory.

Same old same old from Ken.