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: 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
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 - |