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: kenseto on 23 Jun 2010 09:57 On Jun 22, 9:20 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. SR and LET are the same aether theory and thus they have the same math....an inertial frame in SR is a preferred frame and thus every SR observer assumes the exclusive properties of the preferred frame which are: all the clocks moving wrt the observer are running slow and all the meter sticks are contracted. Ken Seto > > > > > 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 -
From: kenseto on 23 Jun 2010 10:00 On Jun 22, 1:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. There is no internal contradiction in what I said. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 10:03 On Jun 23, 9:00 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 1:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > There is no internal contradiction in what I said. Ken, you're an idiot and you cannot read a sentence from beginning to end and understand what it said. You've said that *special relativity* is full of internal contradictions. You've all said it is correct nevertheless. Only you would say something so idiotic. > > Ken Seto > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam on 24 Jun 2010 19:37 On Jun 24, 5:12 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > So you agree that the SR effect on the ground clock form the GPS point > of view is: 7 us/day running fast....right? This would violate the > bogus SR concept of mutual time dilation. > > Ken Seto > Seto--You can have ONLY ONE perspective. And that is perfectly applicable for two clocks in linear motion with respect to each other. Satellite clocks, such as GPS, require the application of General Relativity, as the earth gravitation is a big factor. Look at equations 33-36 and the reasoning of the derivation, Ken. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html You really should read the Ashby's whole article.
From: colp on 13 Jul 2010 02:43
On Jul 13, 2:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 8:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > No....no experiment confirm mutual time dilation. > > Ken, you repeatedly lie about the nonexistence of experiments, just > because you don't know about them. So you should be able to describe experiments that confirm mutual time dilation if they actually exist, right? > > Repeating, Ken: You need to READ more about what experiments have been > performed to test various aspects of special relativity. The Hafele-Keating does not support Einstein's Principle of Relativity because the math only works from a single frame of reference. |