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 30 Jul 2010 08:59
On Jul 29, 11:34 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >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:
> >> >> 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.
>
> Yes, and experiments do show A measuring B's clock as running slow.
>
> >> 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.
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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. No measurement of any
kind from B's point of view.....B makes the bogus prediction that A is
running slow.

Ken Seto

>
> >>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.
>
> "In certain situation[s]" implies a conflict in other situations, and you
> admit a conflict with mutual time dilation predictions, thus SR cannot be
> a subset of your claims, because of these conflicts. Just because it does
> *not* conflict "in certain situation[s]" does not mean it *never*
> conflicts with SR.
>
> >> >> 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 sentence 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.
>
> So, you seem to have picked the second sentence, thus IRT conflicts
> with SR and (supposedly) corrects it.

From: kenseto on 30 Jul 2010 09:03
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.

> 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.

From: Michael Moroney on 30 Jul 2010 11:29
kenseto <kenseto(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.

You state that sometimes, A will see B's clock as running fast, and/or
B will see A's clock as running fast.

That directly conflicts with "always running slow".

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: 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.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
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