Some Contradictory Claims of SR. [Physics]

Prev: 9-11 Kooks - * Hates US * still afraid to post one single thing in his physically impossible claims that he wants to defend -- he can't and he won't because they're all lies
Next: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY

From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 10:05

On Jul 25, 8:56 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 11:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 9:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 9:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 7:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 22, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 22, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry, Ken, you don't get to decide what "physical" means. >Physicists do. It really doesn't matter whether you find these >definitions
> > > > > > > > > > laughable or not. You either learn them, and use the terms as
> > > > > > > > > > physicists do, or you give up on communicating with physicists.
>
> > > > > > > > > ROTFLOL....you want to use the word physical to have different
> > > > > > > > > meanings as follows:
> > > > > > > > > 1. Physical contraction can mean real material shrinkage such that the
> > > > > > > > > tip of the rivet will crush the bug to death at a later time than if
> > > > > > > > > there is no material shrinkage.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Physical contraction can mean that no real material shrinkage...it
> > > > > > > > > is a geometric projection effect. this kind of shrinkage will not
> > > > > > > > > affect when the tip of the rivet hits the bug.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes. Physical encompasses both kinds of effects.
>
> > > > > > > ROTFLOL....so that means that "physical contraction" is an
> > > > > > > epicycle.
>
> > > > > > What do you think "epicycle" means, Ken? You've just used another word
> > > > > > and you have no idea what it means.
>
> > > > > It is you who don't know what the word epicycle mean....it mean an add
> > > > > on to a theory that encounters observation problems.
>
> > > > Well, not quite, but now I understand what YOU mean by "epicycle".
>
> > > > > That's exactly
> > > > > what the term "physical contraction" does when you insisted that it
> > > > > means both material contraction and geometric projection effect.
>
> > > > "Physical" has ALWAYS encompassed both the geometric and the material
> > > > -- and even more than that.
> > > > There was no adjustment made.
>
> > > ROTFLOL....do you realize that geometric projection effect is not
> > > material and material effect is not geometric projection??? What this
> > > means is that you give the term "physical contraction" two
> > > contradictory meanings. <shrug>
>
> > Do you realize that an animal with four legs and fur is not an animal
> > with fins and a blowhole?
>
> ROTFLOL....no valid counter arguement so you go back to your animal
> anology. <sgrug>

The animal analogy is designed to show you that a word like "physical"
and "mammal" can encompass two completely different things. You
apparently see that mammal can encompass animals that have fur and
four legs, and animals that have no legs and no fur. Yet you cannot
see that physical can encompass geometric and material phenomena.

Basically, you reject what you do not want to hear. This will prevent
you from ever being a scientist worth anything.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > Do you realize that an animal with fins and a blowhole is not an
> > animal with four legs and fur?
> > What this means is that when a biologist uses "mammal" to describe
> > both these animals it gives it two contradictory meanings?
>
> > Don't be an idiot, Ken.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > Similarly the rubber ruler is an epicycle because it is an add on to
> > > > > SR to maintain the constancy of the speed of light.
>
> > > > What? When do you think "rubber rulers" were added on to SR? What did
> > > > SR say prior to the addition of "rubber rulers". Do you have ANY idea
> > > > what you're talking about? No, I didn't think so.
>
> > What did SR say prior to the addition of "rubber rulers", Ken?
> > Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
>
> > > Rubber ruler:
> > > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second
> > > c=1 light-second/1 second=1
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > >..it is added on by indoctrinated runts of the SRians such as
> > > > > > > yourself to propagate the myth to the public that a meter stick is
> > > > > > > shorter when it is in relative motion wrt an observer.
>
> > > > > > No, it's not added on.
>
> > > > > Yes it is an added on.
>
> > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > >It's ALWAYS meant that. It meant that centuries
> > > > > > before you were born. You just never knew what "physical" meant..
>
> > > > See?
>
> > > > > > > You SRians are good at inventing things that has different meanings.
> > > > > > > Another example of epicycle invented for SR is the rubber meter stick
> > > > > > > to maintain the constancy of the speed of light in all frames:
> > > > > > > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second.
>
> > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -...
>
> > > > > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 10:36

On 7/26/10 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> 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. What I
> want to point out is that most of the SR interpretations such as
> length contraction and time dilation are wrong.

Seto, you cannot deny the experimental confirmation of time
dilation as predicted by special relativity.

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

> 4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect
>
> The Doppler effect is the observed variation in frequency of a source when it is observed by a detector that is moving relative to the source. This effect is most pronounced when the source is moving directly toward or away from the detector, and in pre-relativity physics its value was zero for transverse motion (motion perpendicular to the source-detector line). In SR there is a non-zero Doppler effect for transverse motion, due to the relative time dilation of the source as seen by the detector. Measurements of Doppler shifts for sources moving with velocities approaching c can test the validity of SR's prediction for such observations, which differs significantly from classical predictions; the experiments support SR and are in complete disagreement with non-relativistic predictions.
>
> Review Article
>
> G. Gwinner, “Experimental Tests of Time Dilation in Special Relativity”, Mod. Phys. Lett. 1, 20, no. 11 (2005), pg 791.
> A general review article.
>
> The Ives and Stilwell Experiment
>
> H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 28 pg 215–226 (1938); JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941).
> This classic experiment measured the transverse Doppler effect for moving atoms.
>
> Otting, Physik. Zeitschr. 40, 681 (1939).
> -
>
> Hasselkamp et al., Z. Physik A289 (1989), pg 151.
> A measurement that is truly at 90° in the lab. Agreement with SR to an accuracy of a few percent.
>
> See also Mandelberg and Witten.
>
> Measurements of Particle Lifetimes
>
> Rossi and Hoag, Physical Review 57, pg 461 (1940).
> Rossi and Hall, Physical Review 59, pg 223 (1941).
> Rasetti, Physical Review 60, pg 198 (1941).
> Redei, Phys. Rev. 162 no. 5 (1967), pg 1299.
> Various measurements of the lifetimes of muons.
> See also: Bailey et al.
>
> Durbin, Loar and Havens, Physical Review 88, pg 179 (1952).
> -
>
> D. Frisch and J. Smith, “Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using Mesons”, Am. J. Phys. 31 (1963) 342.
> Measurements of the lifetimes of pions. An interpretation was given by: Terell, Nuovo Cimento 16 (1960) pg 457.
>
> Greenberg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 no. 21 (1969), pg 1267.
> More accurate measurement of pion lifetimes.
>
> Ayres et al., Phys. Rev. D3 no. 5 (1971), pg 1051.
> Measurements of pion lifetimes, comparison of positive and negative pions, etc.
>
> Burrowes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 (1959), pg 117.
> Measurements of Kaon lifetimes.
>
> Doppler Shift Measurements
>
> Kaivola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 no. 4 (1985), pg 255.
> McGowan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 no. 3 (1993), pg 251.
> They compared the frequency of two lasers, one locked to fast-beam neon and one locked to the same transition in thermal neon. Kaivola found agreement with SR's Doppler formula is to within 4×10−5; McGowan within 2.3×10−6.
>
> Hay et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960), pg 165.
> A Mössbauer absorber on a rotor.
>
> Kuendig, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 6 (1963), pg 2371.
> A Mössbauer absorber on a rotor was used to verify the transverse Doppler effect of SR to 1.1%.
>
> Olin et al., Phys. Rev. D8 no. 6 (1973), pg 1633.
> A nuclear measurement at 0.05 c, in very good agreement with the prediction of SR.
>
> Mandelberg and Witten, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. 52, pg 529 (1962).
> Measured the exponent of the quadratic Doppler shift to be 0.498±0.025, in agreement with SR's value of ½.
>

From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 10:46

On 7/26/10 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jul 25, 3:53 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> Length contraction is observer dependent!
>
> Does that mean that you are now agreeing that length contraction is
> not material or physical....but rather it's merely a geometric
> projection effect and such effect cannot cause the bug to die....the
> bug dies when the tip of the rivet hits the bug and every observer
> agrees to that.

Relativistic effect, although observer dependent are as real as
real can be, Seto. Think how and why particle accelerators work.

Seto, you get confused because you mistakenly take the perspective
of the object where there is no relativistic effect. But the observer
in relative motion (v > 0) MEASURES the relativistic effects.

Furthermore, what is measured depends on the observer--greater
relative velocity, greater measured relativistic effect.

It was a bold step for Einstein, and experiment has proved the
correctness of relativity every time for a hole century now.

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.