SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 14:34 On 7/9/10 1:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 9, 11:40 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/9/10 7:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Hey idiot when you assert that all the clocks moving wrt you are >>> running slow you are assuming that you are at rest in the aether >>> frame. >>> The correct assumption is that a clock moving wrt you can run slow or >>> fast compared too your clock. >> >> No, I don't have to be a rest with respect to anything. If there is >> a clock moving with respect to me with velocity v, disregarding >> gravitational affects, accelerations, and Doppler effects, I measure >> that clock's time interval, > > No such measurement ever been made. SR predicts that: > >> >> ∆t_clock' = γ ∆t_clock > > This is better the clock' is the observed clock and the clock is the > observer's clock. > > Ken Seto Actually not! > >> >> where γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . >> >> The measurement agrees with the predictions of special relativity. >> >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >
From: Michael Moroney on 10 Jul 2010 11:13 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Jul 7, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The principle of equivalence explicitly says that there is no >> >> preferred frame. >> >> ... >> >> >Yes they are the exclusive properties of the aether frame....every LET >> >observer accept that the aether frame exists and claims these >> >exclusive properties....that's why LET and SR have the same math. >> >> The phrase "the exclusive properties of the aether frame" DIRECTLY >> conflicts with the phrase "there is no preferred frame". >Hey idiot...if the SR observer's clock is the fastest running clock in >th euniverse it is a preferred clock. Well, using your misguided claim that "the SR observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the universe", and that is true for *every* inertial frame, then *every* inertial frame would have to be a preferred frame, which is an interesting way of stating that there are no preferred frames. Regardless, SR specifically states "there is no preferred frame", so any claim of yours regarding any preferred frame is not part of SR. Plus none of this has anything to do with any sort of aether, which SR explicitly dispenses with as unnecessary. What Einstein later refers to as aether is just the properties of empty space (such as values for the speed of light through it, and values of permittivity and permeability through it etc) and explicitly states that motion cannot be applied to empty space. This tosses out the idea of the old concept of luminiferous aether. >> Since the >> latter is part of the principle of equivalence in SR, your claim that >> "SR uses the exclusive properties of the aether frame" is completely >> false. Why can't you see that? >Hey idiot but that's what SR claim ....it claims that the SR >observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. No, it claims every other frame's clock will be seen as running slower in its frame. Learn the difference. >> >> Also, I've asked you repeatedly for proof of your claim "SR uses the >> exclusive properties of the aether frame", where SR states that and you >> cannot do so. =A0Yet you still repeat it as truth. Put up or shut up.
From: kenseto on 11 Jul 2010 09:04 On Jul 9, 2:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 1:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 11:40 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > >> On 7/9/10 7:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> Hey idiot when you assert that all the clocks moving wrt you are > >>> running slow you are assuming that you are at rest in the aether > >>> frame. > >>> The correct assumption is that a clock moving wrt you can run slow or > >>> fast compared too your clock. > > >>   No, I don't have to be a rest with respect to anything. If there is > >>   a clock moving with respect to me with velocity v, disregarding > >>   gravitational affects, accelerations, and Doppler effects, I measure > >>   that clock's time interval, > > > No such measurement ever been made. SR predicts that: > > >>     ât_clock' = γ ât_clock > > > This is better the clock' is the observed clock and the clock is the > > observer's clock. > > > Ken Seto > >   Actually not! Actually yes. > > > > > > >>   where  γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > >>   The measurement agrees with the predictions of special relativity. > > >>   Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > >>    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jul 2010 18:11 On 7/13/10 4:59 PM, kenseto wrote: > No idiot SR didn't deny the existence of the preferred frame. It calls > the preferred frame as an inertial frame. There is nothing preferred about inertial frames.... pick any and special relativity will accurately predict the observations of time dilation, mass increase, etc. for a observer in relative motion to that being observed. Particle accelerators are excellent examples of applications.
From: kenseto on 14 Jul 2010 09:09
On Jul 13, 6:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/13/10 4:59 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > No idiot SR didn't deny the existence of the preferred frame. It calls > > the preferred frame as an inertial frame. > > There is nothing preferred about inertial frames.... pick any and > special relativity will accurately predict the observations of time > dilation, mass increase, etc. for a observer in relative motion to > that being observed. Hey idiot...the point is that every inertial observer assumes the properties of the preferred frame to make these predictions. That's why every SR observer asserts that all the clocks in the universe moving wrt every SR observer are running slow. Ken Seto > > Particle accelerators are excellent examples of applications. |