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: 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.

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.