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: Michael Moroney on 14 Jul 2010 00:29 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 12, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 12, 8:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> Ken, you repeatedly lie about the nonexistence of experiments, just >> because you don't know about them. >> >> Repeating, Ken: You need to READ more about what experiments have been >> performed to test various aspects of special relativity. Just because >> you only know about two or three (and those two or three you don't >> understand very well) doesn't mean the other tests haven't been done. >> You need to EDUCATE yourself. >Assertion is not a valid arguement. There is no experiment confirming >mutual time dilation. >> >> > The GPS refute the >> > idea of mutal time dilation. >> >> You are simply repeating the same mistake. SR does not predict mutual >> time dilation for the GPS case. Any attempt to misuse SR to lay its >> claims where SR says they wouldn't apply, is simply pilot error. >ROTFLOL....if mutual time dilation exists then it should apply to any >situation. The GPS refute mutual time dilation because: >from the Ground clock point of view the SR effect in the GPS clock is >7 us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on >the ground clock is ~7 us/day running fast. No mutual time dialtion >there. Assertion is not a valid arguement. There is no experiment confirming that from the Ground clock point of view the SR effect in the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7 us/day running fast.
From: kenseto on 14 Jul 2010 08:21 On Jul 14, 12:29 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 12, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 12, 8:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> Ken, you repeatedly lie about the nonexistence of experiments, just > >> because you don't know about them. > > >> Repeating, Ken: You need to READ more about what experiments have been > >> performed to test various aspects of special relativity. Just because > >> you only know about two or three (and those two or three you don't > >> understand very well) doesn't mean the other tests haven't been done. > >> You need to EDUCATE yourself. > >Assertion is not a valid arguement. There is no experiment confirming > >mutual time dilation. > > >> > The GPS refute the > >> > idea of mutal time dilation. > > >> You are simply repeating the same mistake. SR does not predict mutual > >> time dilation for the GPS case. Any attempt to misuse SR to lay its > >> claims where SR says they wouldn't apply, is simply pilot error. > >ROTFLOL....if mutual time dilation exists then it should apply to any > >situation. The GPS refute mutual time dilation because: > >from the Ground clock point of view the SR effect in the GPS clock is > >7 us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on > >the ground clock is ~7 us/day running fast. No mutual time dialtion > >there. > > Assertion is not a valid arguement. There is no experiment confirming > that from the Ground clock point of view the SR effect in the GPS clock is > 7 us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on > the ground clock is ~7 us/day running fast. Hey idiot....the GPSA confirm what I said. You are stupid. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 17:10 On Jul 13, 1:43 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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? I have, thanks. > > > > > 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. Don't be ridiculous. The principle of relativity does not say "Expect the same observed outcome in all inertial reference frames." It also does not say "The math you use in one inertial frame will be identical to the math you will use in a different reference frame." I've already told you what the principle of relativity says, and you still don't seem to know what that is. PD
From: eric gisse on 17 Jul 2010 17:28 PD wrote: [...] > Of course it is. Read the papers. > Your blind assertion that the experiments do not exist is just that. > An assertion. What is Ken trying to accomplish at this point? [...]
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 13:43
On Jul 23, 9:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:51 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Assertion is not a valid arguement. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > > mutual time dilation. > > > > > > > That's YOUR assertion that there is no experiment. The experimental > > > > > > literature is there, and I've referred you to experiments you can look > > > > > > up. > > > > > > No scuh experiment exists...what you referred to are not relevant to > > > > > the concept of mutual time dilation. > > > > > Of course it is. Read the papers. > > > > Your blind assertion that the experiments do not exist is just that.. > > > > An assertion. > > > > Of course it is not...mutual time dilation requires reading from both > > > clocks...no experiment can do that. > > > What? Whatever gave you that idea? > > Because that's what mutual time dilation means?? Accoridng to A's > clock B is running slow....according to B's clock A is running slow. Whatever gave you the idea that no experiment can accomplish reading from both clocks? > > > > > You have this goofball notion that if things are moving too fast, we > > can't measure anything about them, or that the measurement must > > involve one person standing in a room and trying to read two clocks at > > the same time. > > > You've got ZERO idea how to design or run an experiment or even how to > > record a measurement automatically. > > > > Beside the GPS refute the SR claim > > > of mutual time dilation. > > > SR says specifically that mutual time dilation will not occur in the > > GPS system, so there is no SR claim of mutual time dilation in the GPS > > system. > > Then why does the SR effect on the gPS is calculated using the SR > equations??? 1. It's not. The GPS time lag is calculated using GR, not SR. 2. Even if it did "use the SR equations" does not mean you expect mutual time dilation. As I've told you repeatedly, mutual time dilation does not apply in every case you use SR. SR only says mutual time dilation will be observed in certain cases, and in other situations (where you can still use SR) you will not see mutual time dilation. You have this bonehead idea that in any case where you're using SR, you'll see mutual time dilation. > > Ken Seto > > > > >We've discussed this dozens of times, and you still have not > > absorbed this. Are you slow in the head? > > > > From the ground clock point of view the GPS > > > is 7 us/day running slow. From the GPS point of view the ground clock > > > is ~7 us/day running fast. No mutual time dilation there. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Or you can continue to deny reality. That would be a mental > > > > > > > disorder, though. > > > > > > > > > > The GPS refute the > > > > > > > > > idea of mutal time dilation. > > > > > > > > > You are simply repeating the same mistake. SR does not predict mutual > > > > > > > > time dilation for the GPS case. Any attempt to misuse SR to lay its > > > > > > > > claims where SR says they wouldn't apply, is simply pilot error. > > > > > > > > ROTFLOL....if mutual time dilation exists then it should apply to any > > > > > > > situation. > > > > > > > Nonsense, Ken. Physical laws do not work that way. NONE of them do. > > > > > > You need to revisit basic science. > > > > > > The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow and from the > > > > > GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7 us/day > > > > > running fast. These figures uses the SR equations to calculate so- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » |