Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: artful on 27 Jul 2010 21:48 On Jul 27, 9:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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 So IRT is NOT a superset of SRT as it predicts DIFFERENT results to what SR predict for a given scenario. Your lies are very obvious ken .. you trying to push your useless non-theory onto others by piggy- backing on the success of SR is nothing be fraud and deception
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 10:53 On Jul 27, 9:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(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. No SR says that A predicts B is running slow by a factor of 1/ gamma....I agree to that. > SR states an observer in Frame B will measure a clock in Frame A as > running slow. This SR prediction is derived from the faulty SR assumption that every SR observer is in a state of rest and thus all clcoks moving wrt him are running slow. Since we already predicted that A is running faster than B then B must run slower than A and thus B cannot predict A runs slow....instead he must predict that A run fast. > Ken claims that the Frame B observer will see the Frame A > clock as running fast, conflicting with SR. It is not conflicting with SR...it corrects an faulty assumption of SR. >Therefore, any claim that > SR is a subset of IRT is false. SR is a subset of IRT because it got A's prediction correctly. > In addition, the experimental results > agree with SR and not IRT, so we also know that IRT is at least partially > wrong. Sigh....experimental result agree with A's prediction only. Not B's prediction that A is running slow.
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 10:58 On Jul 27, 9:48 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 9:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > So IRT is NOT a superset of SRT as it predicts DIFFERENT results to > what SR predict for a given scenario. Sure IRT is a super set of SR It includes the correct prediction of SR that says that an observed clock can run slow. But it reject the faulty SR assertion that all clocks moving wrt the observer are running slow. Ken Seto > Your lies are very obvious > ken .. you trying to push your useless non-theory onto others by piggy- > backing on the success of SR is nothing be fraud and deception- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Jul 2010 15:24 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 27, 9:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> writes: >> >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. >No SR says that A predicts B is running slow by a factor of 1/ >gamma....I agree to that. Another reason why SR conflicts with Ken's dreck - SR predicts A will measure B's clock as running slow. Ken thinks B's clock IS running slow...B will disagree. >> SR states an observer in Frame B will measure a clock in Frame A as >> running slow. >This SR prediction is derived from the faulty SR assumption that every >SR observer is in a state of rest and thus all clcoks moving wrt him >are running slow. Since we already predicted that A is running faster >than B then B must run slower than A and thus B cannot predict A runs >slow....instead he must predict that A run fast. So you admit that your beliefs are in conflict with SR. Therefore SR cannot be any subset of your beliefs, as SR is in conflict with your beliefs. >> Ken claims that the Frame B observer will see the Frame A >> clock as running fast, conflicting with SR. >It is not conflicting with SR...it corrects an faulty assumption of >SR. Your first aentence and your second sentence conflict with each other. Pick one or the other, they cannot both be true. >>Therefore, any claim that >> SR is a subset of IRT is false. >SR is a subset of IRT because it got A's prediction correctly. ....and it gets B's prediction wrong. Read what Inertial wrote: "So everything SR says, IRT must say, and IRT must then also say addition[al] things. Otherwise the claim that SR is a subset of IRT is just another lie." >> In addition, the experimental results >> agree with SR and not IRT, so we also know that IRT is at least partially >> wrong. >Sigh....experimental result agree with A's prediction only. Not B's >prediction that A is running slow. Did you follow PD's link to Ashby's paper that he always tries to get you to read, or the links to experimental verification of SR? Not light reading; maybe if you ask nicely they'll help you understand it. Denying experimental results won't make them go away.
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Jul 2010 15:30
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >Sure IRT is a super set of SR. It includes the correct prediction of SR >that says that an observed clock can run slow. But it reject the >faulty SR assertion that all clocks moving wrt the observer are >running slow. The first and third sentences here are in direct conflict with each other. Pick one or the other: 1) "IRT is a super set of SR." 2) "[IRT] rejects the faulty SR assertion that all clocks moving wrt the observer are running slow." |