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 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."

From: Sam Wormley on 28 Jul 2010 21:05

On 7/28/10 9:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> 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

Then IRT has to also predict:

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: kenseto on 29 Jul 2010 09:48

On Jul 28, 3:24 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(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.

No measurement....SR just predicts.

> Ken thinks B's clock IS running
> slow...B will disagree.

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.

>
> >> 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.

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.

>Therefore SR
> cannot be any subset of your beliefs, as SR is in conflict with your
> beliefs.

SR math is a subset of IRT math because the SR math agrees with IRT
math in certain situation....such as that an observed clock is in a
higher state of absolute motion.

>
> >> 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.

No the SR prediction of mutual time dilation is wrong....A cannot
predict B is slow and at the same time A predicts A is slow. This
contradicts all logic.

>
> >>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.