Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Michael Moroney on 30 Jul 2010 11:37 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 29, 11:41 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Jul 28, 3:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >> 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." >> >Both of these sentences are correct. SR is a subset of IRT because it >> >does not include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster >> >than the observer's clock. >> >> Because SR makes an explicit prediction about observed clocks, and >> these prediction *never* include an observed clock running faster than >> the observer's clock, >Hey idiot that's why SR is incomplete.....it make the bogus assertion >that clocks in relative motion see each other running slow. In real >life if clock B is truly running slower than clock A then clock A is >running faster than clock B. You are stating by this that SR is *wrong*, not "incomplete". "Incomplete" means not making a prediction on what happens. For example, Newtonian mechanics makes no prediction about how clocks run in moving objects other than an implicit assumption that time flows at a constant rate. It is incomplete. >> there is an explicit conflict between SR and IRT. >> Thus SR cannot be a subset of IRT. >> >> We'll just have to add "subset" and "superset" to the list of words Ken >> has redefined. Do we need to add "incomplete" to this growing list?
From: kenseto on 31 Jul 2010 09:34 On Jul 30, 11:29 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 29, 11:34 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >No that's not what I think or what IRT says. IRT says that: > >> >From A's point of view: > >> >1. B runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma OR > >> >2. B runs fast by a factor of gamma > >> >From B's point of view: > >> >1. A runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma OR > >> >2. A runs fast by a factor of gamma. > > >> Both "2" phrases are in conflict with what SR states will be measured. > >No idiot....the fact that SR does not include "2" phrases does not > >mean that IRT is in conflict with SR. It means that SR is incomplete. > > SR explicitly states that if A and B are in relative motion, A will always > see B's clock as running slow and B will always see A's clock as running > slow. SR gives the math that produces these results. No idiot....every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and thus he assumes that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. In real life no two clocks A and B can see each other's clock as running slow. All experiments show that one clock is running slow and the other is running fast when they are compared. > > You state that sometimes, A will see B's clock as running fast, and/or > B will see A's clock as running fast. No I didn't say that. I said that A will see B's clock as running fast OR running slow....but only one of these prediction is correct. > > That directly conflicts with "always running slow". This SR statment is the reason why SR is incomplete. Ken Seto > > A specification for a car may state that the brake always makes > the car run slower. Would you agree that it would conflict with that > specification if the brake sometimes slowed the car and sometimes made > the car run faster? (It didn't work out so well for Toyota) > > >> >> So you admit that your beliefs are in conflict with SR. > >> >No I admit no such thing. I said that if A is truly running faster > >> >than B then B must truly running slower than A. What this mean is that > >> >the SR concept of mutual time dialtion is wrong. > > >> So you admit that your beliefs are in conflict with SR, since SR predicts > >> A will measure B as running slow, and B will measure A as running slow.. > >The Sr concept of mutual time dilation is wrong. > > So you admit that your beliefs are in conflict with SR. > > > No measurement of any > >kind from B's point of view.....B makes the bogus prediction that A is > >running slow. > > Still haven't followed PD's links, I see.
From: kenseto on 31 Jul 2010 09:38
On Jul 30, 11:37 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 29, 11:41 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >On Jul 28, 3:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: > >> >> 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." > >> >Both of these sentences are correct. SR is a subset of IRT because it > >> >does not include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster > >> >than the observer's clock. > > >> Because SR makes an explicit prediction about observed clocks, and > >> these prediction *never* include an observed clock running faster than > >> the observer's clock, > >Hey idiot that's why SR is incomplete.....it make the bogus assertion > >that clocks in relative motion see each other running slow. In real > >life if clock B is truly running slower than clock A then clock A is > >running faster than clock B. > > You are stating by this that SR is *wrong*, not "incomplete". "Incomplete" > means not making a prediction on what happens. Sigh....SR failed to include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock is incomplete. Ken Seto >example, Newtonian > mechanics makes no prediction about how clocks run in moving objects other > than an implicit assumption that time flows at a constant rate. It is > incomplete. > > >> there is an explicit conflict between SR and IRT. > >> Thus SR cannot be a subset of IRT. > > >> We'll just have to add "subset" and "superset" to the list of words Ken > >> has redefined. > > Do we need to add "incomplete" to this growing list?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |