Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Peter Webb on 26 Jul 2010 20:24 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:c33968a9-59b3-486a-9692-9ee6a799bf65(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Jul 26, 7:01 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > This thread should be moved to alt.language.english. > > You have long since given up arguing that SR is an incorrect theory; > instead > you just want to quibble about what the words "physical", "material" and > "geometric" actually mean. I never said that SR math is incorrect. I said that SR math is incomplete. My theory IRT includes the SR math as a subset. ________________________ Well, if SR is a subset of your theory, then your theory must predict things that SR doesn't. What experiment will demonstrate that the bits you have added to SR are correct?
From: Inertial on 26 Jul 2010 21:13 "Peter Webb" wrote in message news:4c4e276c$0$3031$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >Well, if SR is a subset of your theory, then your theory must predict >things that SR doesn't. BUT .. it must also predict EXACTLY the same things the SR DOES predict, otherwise SR is not a subset, but is disjoint from IRT. So everything SR says, IRT must say, and IRT must then also say addition things Otherwise the claim that SR is a subset of IRT is just another lie.
From: kenseto on 27 Jul 2010 07:28 On Jul 26, 8:24 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:c33968a9-59b3-486a-9692-9ee6a799bf65(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 26, 7:01 am, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > This thread should be moved to alt.language.english. > > > You have long since given up arguing that SR is an incorrect theory; > > instead > > you just want to quibble about what the words "physical", "material" and > > "geometric" actually mean. > > I never said that SR math is incorrect. I said that SR math is > incomplete. My theory IRT includes the SR math as a subset. > > ________________________ > > Well, if SR is a subset of your theory, then your theory must predict > things that SR doesn't. For starter: 1. IRT transform equations can be used to replace GRT in cosmolgy applications. 2. IRT predicts that an observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. 3. IRT predicts that there is no material length contraction...but the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt an observer can be shorter or longer compared to the light path length of the observer's meter stick....the light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its material length. Ken Seto > > What experiment will demonstrate that the bits you have added to SR are > correct?
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jul 2010 11:24 On 7/27/10 6:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > 2. IRT predicts that an observed clock can run faster than the > observer's clock. ______________ A and B are observers with identical clocks. That is A and B's clocks ticked synchronously when they were together. ∆t represent a time interval between tick of the clocks. Special relativity predicts that observer A will measure that ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . Furthermore, special relativity predicts that observer B will measure that ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: Michael Moroney on 27 Jul 2010 21:25
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> writes: >"Peter Webb" wrote in message >news:4c4e276c$0$3031$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>Well, if SR is a subset of your theory, then your theory must predict >>things that SR doesn't. >BUT .. it must also predict EXACTLY the same things the SR DOES predict, >otherwise SR is not a subset, but is disjoint from IRT. >So everything SR says, IRT must say, and IRT must then also say addition >things >Otherwise the claim that SR is a subset of IRT is just another lie. If Frame B is in inertial motion relative to Frame A, an observer in Frame A will measure a clock in Frame B as running slow. Ken apparently agrees. SR states an observer in Frame B will measure a clock in Frame A as running slow. Ken claims that the Frame B observer will see the Frame A clock as running fast, conflicting with SR. Therefore, any claim that SR is a subset of IRT is false. In addition, the experimental results agree with SR and not IRT, so we also know that IRT is at least partially wrong. |