SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 18 Jul 2010 09:14 On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 14, 1:48 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> >> Yet you can't deny that SR specifically denies the existence of any > >> >> preferred frame. > >> >No idiot SR didn't deny the existence of the preferred frame. It calls > >> >the preferred frame as an inertial frame. > > >> Which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will observe the > >> same laws of physics" don't you understand? > >Hey idiot....all inertial frames will observe the same laws of physics > >because every inertial observer assumes that he is at rest in the > >preferred frame and thus assumes the laws of physics of the preferred > >frame. > > Again, which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will > observe the same laws of physics" don't you understand? Hey idiot....all inertial frames adopts the exclusive properties of the preferred frame and that's why all inertial frames are equivalent. Ken Seto > > If all inertial reference frames observe the same laws of physics, there > is no such thing as a preferred frame. Period. Because there is nothing > preferred about it, since all inertial reference frames observe the same > laws of physics.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Jul 2010 22:34 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Jul 14, 1:48 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >> >> Yet you can't deny that SR specifically denies the existence of any >> >> >> preferred frame. >> >> >No idiot SR didn't deny the existence of the preferred frame. It calls >> >> >the preferred frame as an inertial frame. >> >> >> Which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will observe the >> >> same laws of physics" don't you understand? >> >Hey idiot....all inertial frames will observe the same laws of physics >> >because every inertial observer assumes that he is at rest in the >> >preferred frame and thus assumes the laws of physics of the preferred >> >frame. >> >> Again, which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will >> observe the same laws of physics" don't you understand? >Hey idiot....all inertial frames adopts the exclusive properties of >the preferred frame and that's why all inertial frames are equivalent. That's something you made up. SR states nothing of the sort. All inertial frames use their own frame's properties, but since all frames have the same physics according to SR, there is no preferred frame. Anyway, no matter how many times you deny it, SR explicitly denies the existence of any preferred frame. Why not answer the question? Which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will observe the same laws of physics" don't you understand? Did you read my description of the spacelike event pair separation?
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jul 2010 23:22 On 7/18/10 8:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 17, 1:20 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 7/17/10 11:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > >>> > > every Sr observer claims that all the clocks in the universe >>> > > are running slow. That's a special property. It is not special if he >>> > > claims that an observed clock can run slow or fast compared to his >>> > > clock. >> > >> > Since every observer measures time dilation in clocks with >> > relative motion to themselves, there is nothing special or >> > preferred, as this is a universal phenomena for all inertial >> > observers. > No wormy, no measurement of any kind ever been made. You do like to ignore both theory and evidence, don't you Ken? Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: kenseto on 19 Jul 2010 10:31 On Jul 18, 10:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >On Jul 14, 1:48 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: > >> >> >> Yet you can't deny that SR specifically denies the existence of any > >> >> >> preferred frame. > >> >> >No idiot SR didn't deny the existence of the preferred frame. It calls > >> >> >the preferred frame as an inertial frame. > > >> >> Which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will observe the > >> >> same laws of physics" don't you understand? > >> >Hey idiot....all inertial frames will observe the same laws of physics > >> >because every inertial observer assumes that he is at rest in the > >> >preferred frame and thus assumes the laws of physics of the preferred > >> >frame. > > >> Again, which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will > >> observe the same laws of physics" don't you understand? > >Hey idiot....all inertial frames adopts the exclusive properties of > >the preferred frame and that's why all inertial frames are equivalent. > > That's something you made up. SR states nothing of the sort. All > inertial frames use their own frame's properties, but since all frames > have the same physics according to SR, there is no preferred frame. Sure there is preferred frame. In the preferred frame the one-way speed of light is isotropic and has a constant value of c even if it is measured with physical meter stick. SR couldn't duplicate that....so you SRains invented a circular defintion for a meter length to make the speed of light conform to the preferred frame standard as follows: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second Therefore the speed of light is a circular definition: c=1 light-second/1 second=1 Ken Seto > > Anyway, no matter how many times you deny it, SR explicitly denies the > existence of any preferred frame. > > Why not answer the question? Which part of the sentence "all inertial > reference frames will observe the same laws of physics" don't you > understand? > > Did you read my description of the spacelike event pair separation?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 12:30
On Jul 19, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 10:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >> >On Jul 14, 1:48 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >> >wrote: > > >> >> >> Yet you can't deny that SR specifically denies the existence of any > > >> >> >> preferred frame. > > >> >> >No idiot SR didn't deny the existence of the preferred frame. It calls > > >> >> >the preferred frame as an inertial frame. > > > >> >> Which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will observe the > > >> >> same laws of physics" don't you understand? > > >> >Hey idiot....all inertial frames will observe the same laws of physics > > >> >because every inertial observer assumes that he is at rest in the > > >> >preferred frame and thus assumes the laws of physics of the preferred > > >> >frame. > > > >> Again, which part of the sentence "all inertial reference frames will > > >> observe the same laws of physics" don't you understand? > > >Hey idiot....all inertial frames adopts the exclusive properties of > > >the preferred frame and that's why all inertial frames are equivalent. > > > That's something you made up. SR states nothing of the sort. All > > inertial frames use their own frame's properties, but since all frames > > have the same physics according to SR, there is no preferred frame. > > Sure there is preferred frame. In the preferred frame the one-way > speed of light is isotropic and has a constant value of c even if it > is measured with physical meter stick. Those are properties you made up. These are not what physicists mean by "preferred frame". > SR couldn't duplicate > that....so you SRains invented a circular defintion for a meter length > to make the speed of light conform to the preferred frame standard as > follows: > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second > Therefore the speed of light is a circular definition: > c=1 light-second/1 second=1 > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Anyway, no matter how many times you deny it, SR explicitly denies the > > existence of any preferred frame. > > > Why not answer the question? Which part of the sentence "all inertial > > reference frames will observe the same laws of physics" don't you > > understand? > > > Did you read my description of the spacelike event pair separation?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |