SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiation Pressure.
Next: 9/11 nutbag * Hates US * cannot provide cite to his disproven claim that PNAC "wanted the attack" because that is a lie; inside job proven physically impossible
From: eric gisse on 20 Jun 2010 15:04 kenseto wrote: > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. That's why we have general relativity. [...]
From: Sue... on 20 Jun 2010 16:47 On Jun 20, 10:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: WraggedWraps > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. > Here's why: > 1. Every inertial observer in SR is assumed to be in a state of > absolute rest > and therefore he claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest [...] Then wrote: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken, OpenOffice is free and it exports pdf. Why not produce something other than controversy for controversy's sake? Something useful perhaps like this: http://meshula.net/wordpress/?p=222 Sue... > > Ken Seto
From: BURT on 20 Jun 2010 16:58 On Jun 20, 7:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > SR is not wrong but it is incomplete. > Here's why: > 1. Every inertial observer in SR is assumed to be in a state of > absolute rest > and therefore he claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest > frame > which are: all the clocks moving with respect to him are running slow > and the > geometric projection of all the meter sticks moving with respect to > him are > contracted. It turns out that these claims of an SR inertial observer > are valid > in cases where the moving clocks and meter sticks are in a higher > state of > absolute motion than the SR inertial observer. That's why SR is > usefult in > accelerator design applications. > On the other hand that's why SR is incomplete....in real life an SR > observer > cannot claim that he is in a state of absolute rest. He must include > the > possibility that an observed clock is in a lower state of absolute > motion than > him and thus an observed clock can run at a faster rate than his > clock. This > means that SR can be made complete by including this possibility. > A new theory of relativty called IRT includes both possibilities. IRT > includes > SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are > valid in > all environments, including gravity. IRT is described in the following > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto You can move behind light in absolute space as it inches ahead in Einstein's closing velocity. Matter can also leave light behind. This is a motion black hole and is temporary. Mitch Raemsch
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 |