SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN'S ABUSE OF TIME
Next: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
From: kenseto on 19 Jul 2010 14:55 On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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". Those are the properties of the preferred frame. SR hijacked these properties and then turn around and claim that they are not the properties of the preferred frame. Ken Seto > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 15:08 On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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". > > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. Assertion is not an argument. Those are not the properties of "preferred frame" as physicists use the term. It really doesn't matter if you make up new properties and say it's so. That's just an assertion. > SR hijacked these > properties and then turn around and claim that they are not the > properties of the preferred frame. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 20 Jul 2010 10:44 On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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". > > > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. > > Assertion is not an argument. No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. > > Those are not the properties of "preferred frame" as physicists use > the term. Physicists refuse to define what are the properties of a preferred frame...so how can you claim that the properties I described are not the properties of a preferred frame? > It really doesn't matter if you make up new properties and say it's > so. That's just an assertion. Not assertion...definition. Ken Seto > > > > > SR hijacked these > > properties and then turn around and claim that they are not the > > properties of the preferred frame. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 20 Jul 2010 12:14 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Those are properties you made up. These are not what physicists mean >> > > by "preferred frame". >> >> > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. >> >> Assertion is not an argument. >No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. And "a black and white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" is a definition for "zebra". But if you want to have a meaningful discussion with a biologist about something involving African grazing wildlife, you'd better be using the biologist's definition of "zebra". Same with "preferred frame", if you ever expect any meaningful discussions with physicists here, you'd better be using their definition of "preferred frame". If you want to give the thing you've been calling a "preferred frame" a different, unused name, perhaps "Ken Seto's Special Frame", go right ahead.
From: kenseto on 20 Jul 2010 12:23
On Jul 20, 12:14 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > Those are properties you made up. These are not what physicists mean > >> > > by "preferred frame". > > >> > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. > > >> Assertion is not an argument. > >No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. > > And "a black and white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" is a > definition for "zebra". But if you want to have a meaningful discussion > with a biologist about something involving African grazing wildlife, > you'd better be using the biologist's definition of "zebra". > > Same with "preferred frame", if you ever expect any meaningful > discussions with physicists here, you'd better be using their > definition of "preferred frames". The point is:Physicists have no definition for a preferred frame. If you have one then give it to us. Tell us how a preferred clock runs compared to an inertial clcok. Ken Seto > > If you want to give the thing you've been calling a "preferred frame" > a different, unused name, perhaps "Ken Seto's Special Frame", go > right ahead. |