SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?
Next: Witness the physical effect as matter converts to aether
From: PD on 21 Jun 2010 17:09 On Jun 20, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. Oh Ken. First you say SR is full of contradictions and so must be wrong. Then you say SR is not wrong, but is incomplete. You can't even consistently say what you think is wrong with SR.
From: kenseto on 22 Jun 2010 08:54 On Jun 21, 5:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. > > Oh Ken. First you say SR is full of contradictions and so must be > wrong. > Then you say SR is not wrong, but is incomplete. > > You can't even consistently say what you think is wrong with SR. Sure I can.... 1. SR is not wrong when an observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion than the observer. 2. SR is incomplete when it failed to include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. You really need to learn some logic....I suggest that you read some book in this area. Ken Seto
From: Inertial on 22 Jun 2010 09:20 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:b334d0f4-a69c-4925-b3a1-8db95a4ba9ba(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 5:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 20, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. >> >> Oh Ken. First you say SR is full of contradictions and so must be >> wrong. >> Then you say SR is not wrong, but is incomplete. >> >> You can't even consistently say what you think is wrong with SR. > > Sure I can.... > 1. SR is not wrong when an observed clock is in a higher state of > absolute motion than the observer. > 2. SR is incomplete when it failed to include the possibility that an > observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. So you think absolute motion changes actual clock rates? So you belief in LET instead of SR. > You really need to learn some logic....I suggest that you read some > book in this area.
From: PD on 22 Jun 2010 13:17 On Jun 22, 7:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 5:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. > > > Oh Ken. First you say SR is full of contradictions and so must be > > wrong. > > Then you say SR is not wrong, but is incomplete. > > > You can't even consistently say what you think is wrong with SR. > > Sure I can.... > 1. SR is not wrong when an observed clock is in a higher state of > absolute motion than the observer. > 2. SR is incomplete when it failed to include the possibility that an > observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. > > You really need to learn some logic....I suggest that you read some > book in this area. Only Seto would claim that a theory can contain internal contradictions and nevertheless be correct.
From: BURT on 22 Jun 2010 14:52
On Jun 22, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:b334d0f4-a69c-4925-b3a1-8db95a4ba9ba(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. > > >> Oh Ken. First you say SR is full of contradictions and so must be > >> wrong. > >> Then you say SR is not wrong, but is incomplete. > > >> You can't even consistently say what you think is wrong with SR. > > > Sure I can.... > > 1. SR is not wrong when an observed clock is in a higher state of > > absolute motion than the observer. > > 2. SR is incomplete when it failed to include the possibility that an > > observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. > > So you think absolute motion changes actual clock rates? So you belief in > LET instead of SR. > > > > > You really need to learn some logic....I suggest that you read some > > book in this area.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Relative motion is always in the opposite direction and it shrinks in the distance. It is just an appearence. Mitch Raemsch |