| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2006 09:47:43 AM |
| Object: |
The reason why SR is incomplete |
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest. Since no observer is in a
state of absolute rest then SR is valid only if the observed frame is
in a higher state of absolute motion then the observer. This is the
reason why SR is valid in accelerator design applications.
In real life all observers are in different states of absolute motion.
Therefore an observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and some of the clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
This new interpretation leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT.
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A desciprion of IRT
is in the paper entitled "Unification pf Physics" (page 4) in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
29 Sep 2006 01:00:08 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on 28 Sep 2006 07:47:43 -0700
<1159454863.142089.271030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
Be extremely careful here. Since clocks can only be
observed using light and since light (in SR) travels at
constant speed c regardless of source/observer motion,
one gets the following equations.
clock moving away at velocity v
f_obs = f_c * sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)
clock moving towards at velocity v
f_obs = f_c * sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c)
Both are easily derivable from the Lorentz, and indeed
the derivations are instructive as to how to properly
*use* the Lorentz.
Were one able to observe a clock using a signal of near-infinite
speed (a *lot* faster than light, in other words) one
could indeed see it going slow regardless of direction, but
such a signal is impossible anyway.
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
Does anyone else remember the 1802?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
29 Sep 2006 02:48:15 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:gcnuu3-pfh.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
| <kenseto@erinet.com>
| wrote
| on 28 Sep 2006 07:47:43 -0700
| <1159454863.142089.271030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
| > An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
| > and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
|
| Be extremely careful here. Since clocks can only be
| observed using light and since light (in SR) travels at
| constant speed c
(there and back again)
| regardless of source/observer motion,
| one gets the following equations.
|
| clock moving away at velocity v
| f_obs = f_c * sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)
|
| clock moving towards at velocity v
| f_obs = f_c * sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c)
clock moving sideways at velocity u= v.cos(pi/2)
f_obs = f_c * 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
This blue shift and the fact that f_c =1/t_c means
that sideways moving clocks speed up and you are a fuckwit
no matter how extremely careful you try to be.
|
| Both are easily derivable from the Lorentz, and indeed
| the derivations are instructive as to how to properly
| *use* the Lorentz,
which you cannot derive without peristalsis.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
[rest of fuckwitted religious drool snipped]
Androcles
c = 120c -- Ghost.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 09:30:38 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on 28 Sep 2006 07:47:43 -0700
<1159454863.142089.271030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
Be extremely careful here. Since clocks can only be
observed using light and since light (in SR) travels at
constant speed c regardless of source/observer motion,
one gets the following equations.
Ghost: You don't understand anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 11:00:07 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on 30 Sep 2006 07:30:38 -0700
<1159626638.725366.184540@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on 28 Sep 2006 07:47:43 -0700
<1159454863.142089.271030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
Be extremely careful here. Since clocks can only be
observed using light and since light (in SR) travels at
constant speed c regardless of source/observer motion,
one gets the following equations.
Ghost: You don't understand anything.
OK. Calculate the measured frequency or time interval between two
clocks moving at +v or -v with respect to each other, in IRT/MM.
Include the motion with respect to the Matrix and shrinkage factors if
necessary.
I've already done it for SR but can do it again if need be. :-)
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
28 Sep 2006 03:58:35 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks
'receeding clocks' my friend.
Google: "behavoir of moving clocks barttlby 173"
moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Only one electron can be the observer.
This solves it"
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
"Visualizations"
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
Since no observer is in a
state of absolute rest then SR is valid only if the observed frame is
in a higher state of absolute motion then the observer. This is the
reason why SR is valid in accelerator design applications.
Absolute Motion?
You might get a signal to extract a true north
heading from three accelerometers and three firre optic gyros.
"Method for finding true North using a fibreoptic gyroscope"
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/2220/7283/00294817.pdf?arnumber=294817
A universal Cartesian frame? Harumph~ Hardly.ROFL
In real life all observers are in different states of absolute motion.
Real observers are observers of light.
Light is never absolute.
When are you going to learn undergraduate physics?
Hint ===>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
ttp://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Therefore an observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and some of the clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
No... SR only considers the receeding clock. That is the only clock
consistant with:
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
<< This new interpretation leads to a new theory of relativity called
IRT. >>
No it doesn't ... It oooozes from some flunky that was
look at the professors legs instead of the chalk board.
Debunk SR... then you can see if some replacement is
needed.
Sue...
http://dolcevita.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/internet20dominatrix.jpg
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A desciprion of IRT
is in the paper entitled "Unification pf Physics" (page 4) in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 09:24:53 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks
'receeding clocks' my friend.
Google: "behavoir of moving clocks barttlby 173"
moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Only one electron can be the observer.
This solves it"
It is a wast of time talking to Sue. Why? Because she is a machine.
Notice she never answer any questions directly. She only gives you
references.
Ken Seto
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
"Visualizations"
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
Since no observer is in a
state of absolute rest then SR is valid only if the observed frame is
in a higher state of absolute motion then the observer. This is the
reason why SR is valid in accelerator design applications.
Absolute Motion?
You might get a signal to extract a true north
heading from three accelerometers and three firre optic gyros.
"Method for finding true North using a fibreoptic gyroscope"
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/2220/7283/00294817.pdf?arnumber=294817
A universal Cartesian frame? Harumph~ Hardly.ROFL
In real life all observers are in different states of absolute motion.
Real observers are observers of light.
Light is never absolute.
When are you going to learn undergraduate physics?
Hint ===>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
ttp://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Therefore an observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and some of the clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
No... SR only considers the receeding clock. That is the only clock
consistant with:
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
<< This new interpretation leads to a new theory of relativity called
IRT. >>
No it doesn't ... It oooozes from some flunky that was
look at the professors legs instead of the chalk board.
Debunk SR... then you can see if some replacement is
needed.
Sue...
http://dolcevita.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/internet20dominatrix.jpg
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A desciprion of IRT
is in the paper entitled "Unification pf Physics" (page 4) in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 11:51:03 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Just because you say so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
01 Oct 2006 07:08:31 PM |
|
|
OPEN LETTER
Dear google group Administration
I just received a letter from who writes
deffamatory statements on your web-site. He insulted and threaten me.
This is obvious breaking the US Law.
I consulted with my lawers. I officially request you
the information about deffamations of .
I consider that the best way to solve this problem is in the US Court.
Please provide us the IP under which the
entered in your site, and all his activity information on your site. We
would be very grateful.
Thank you in advance.
Yours Sincerely,
Valeri Dvoeglazov
http://planck.reduaz.mx/~valeri/
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Just because you say so?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
28 Sep 2006 01:25:39 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Webb" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
29 Sep 2006 02:04:51 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
02 Oct 2006 09:13:37 AM |
|
|
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
Actually "theory of invariants" is the correct name translated from
German but Dr. Al said it was too late to change the Relativity name
suggested by Planck when he was asked to do so by Minkowski (if I
recall correctly it was Minkowski who proposed the change back to the
original name)
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3518580
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Special_Relativity
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 11:02:22 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
Actually "theory of invariants" is the correct name translated from
German but Dr. Al said it was too late to change the Relativity name
suggested by Planck when he was asked to do so by Minkowski (if I
recall correctly it was Minkowski who proposed the change back to the
original name)
It impossible at that time, since the idiots had already
appointed Planck to be their neo-Galileo.
You would think morons like mathematicians would
be required learn from history at least a once a century, but
such is not the case with evolution's
zero probabilty morons.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3518580
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Special_Relativity
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 09:21:49 AM |
|
|
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
No.....SR itself is an aether theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 10:21:04 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
No.....SR itself is an aether theory.
Well, maybe that's because neither
Lorentz, Einstein, Hilbert, nor Noerther ever claimed
that's there anything really wrong with an aether theory.
It's the Newtonian aether, that they all claimed
was bogus, for the simple reason that
action-at-a-distance not only doesn't exist,
but action-at-a-tiime doesn't exist either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 01:30:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
No.....SR itself is an aether theory.
Well, maybe that's because neither
Lorentz, Einstein, Hilbert, nor Noerther ever claimed
that's there anything really wrong with an aether theory.
It's the Newtonian aether, that they all claimed
was bogus, for the simple reason that
action-at-a-distance not only doesn't exist,
but action-at-a-tiime doesn't exist either.
Action at a distance can exist if the aether is continuous. For a
desciption of such an aether please read the paper "Unification of
Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 02:10:37 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
No.....SR itself is an aether theory.
Well, maybe that's because neither
Lorentz, Einstein, Hilbert, nor Noerther ever claimed
that's there anything really wrong with an aether theory.
It's the Newtonian aether, that they all claimed
was bogus, for the simple reason that
action-at-a-distance not only doesn't exist,
but action-at-a-tiime doesn't exist either.
Action at a distance can exist if the aether is continuous. For a
desciption of such an aether please read the paper "Unification of
Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
What is meant by "action-at-a-distance" regrarding
Newton is MECHANICAL action. It doesn't matter
if it's continous of not.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 08:38:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
No.....SR itself is an aether theory.
Well, maybe that's because neither
Lorentz, Einstein, Hilbert, nor Noerther ever claimed
that's there anything really wrong with an aether theory.
It's the Newtonian aether, that they all claimed
was bogus, for the simple reason that
action-at-a-distance not only doesn't exist,
but action-at-a-tiime doesn't exist either.
Action at a distance can exist if the aether is continuous. For a
desciption of such an aether please read the paper "Unification of
Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
What is meant by "action-at-a-distance" regrarding
Newton is MECHANICAL action. It doesn't matter
if it's continous of not.
Ah....but it is mechanical action. It is the mechanical action of an
object with the geometry of the continuous aether to which it is
confined.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 10:33:38 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
kenseto wrote:
zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
No.....SR itself is an aether theory.
Well, maybe that's because neither
Lorentz, Einstein, Hilbert, nor Noerther ever claimed
that's there anything really wrong with an aether theory.
It's the Newtonian aether, that they all claimed
was bogus, for the simple reason that
action-at-a-distance not only doesn't exist,
but action-at-a-tiime doesn't exist either.
Action at a distance can exist if the aether is continuous. For a
desciption of such an aether please read the paper "Unification of
Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
What is meant by "action-at-a-distance" regrarding
Newton is MECHANICAL action. It doesn't matter
if it's continous of not.
Ah....but it is mechanical action. It is the mechanical action of an
object with the geometry of the continuous aether to which it is
confined.
Ah, but you're so full of *****, they probably gave you
a B grade in polynomials, in addition to the traditional
Evangelist Christian remedial F grade in Geometry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
10 Oct 2006 08:56:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DsUSg.212401$1i1.117535@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
If there was, it would probably be called the "Theory of Absolutivity"
instead of the "Theory of Relativity".
No.....SR itself is an aether theory.
Well, maybe that's because neither
Lorentz, Einstein, Hilbert, nor Noerther ever claimed
that's there anything really wrong with an aether theory.
It's the Newtonian aether, that they all claimed
was bogus, for the simple reason that
action-at-a-distance not only doesn't exist,
but action-at-a-tiime doesn't exist either.
Action at a distance can exist if the aether is continuous. For a
desciption of such an aether please read the paper "Unification of
Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
What is meant by "action-at-a-distance" regrarding
Newton is MECHANICAL action. It doesn't matter
if it's continous of not.
Ah....but it is mechanical action. It is the mechanical action of an
object with the geometry of the continuous aether to which it is
confined.
Ah, but you're so full of *****, they probably gave you
a B grade in polynomials, in addition to the traditional
Evangelist Christian remedial F grade in Geometry.
Ah......but you are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 09:20:31 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
If no absolute reference why does SR claims that the observer is in a
state of absolute rest??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 05:22:52 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
If no absolute reference why does SR claims that the observer is in a
state of absolute rest??
Hey cretin, it doesn't claim that.
That you read into SR any implication of the existence of a state of
absolute rest is proof of your state of absolute cretinicity. Or of
your maladept marketing skills. Sold any yet?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
02 Oct 2006 04:02:16 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
If no absolute reference why does SR claims that the observer is in a
state of absolute rest??
Hey cretin, it doesn't claim that.
That you read into SR any implication of the existence of a state of
absolute rest is proof of your state of absolute cretinicity. Or of
your maladept marketing skills. Sold any yet?
If theobserver is not in a state of absolute rest then why does he sees
all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow?
You are a fucking runt of the SRians ....so *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
02 Oct 2006 06:22:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
If no absolute reference why does SR claims that the observer is in a
state of absolute rest??
Hey cretin, it doesn't claim that.
That you read into SR any implication of the existence of a state of
absolute rest is proof of your state of absolute cretinicity. Or of
your maladept marketing skills. Sold any yet?
If theobserver is not in a state of absolute rest then why does he sees
all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow?
Because length is an observer-dependent quantity and the structure of
spacetime demands it. The fact that the only reason YOU can understand
is that the observer is in a state of absolute rest, does not mean in
any way that that is in fact the only reason, or the right reason, or
the reason that SR asserts.
PD
You are a fucking runt of the SRians ....so *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
02 Oct 2006 08:26:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
If no absolute reference why does SR claims that the observer is in a
state of absolute rest??
Hey cretin, it doesn't claim that.
That you read into SR any implication of the existence of a state of
absolute rest is proof of your state of absolute cretinicity. Or of
your maladept marketing skills. Sold any yet?
If theobserver is not in a state of absolute rest then why does he sees
all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow?
Hey cretin it's because that's the way the universe works (after
correcting for classical Doppler shift.) Einstein's SRT doesn't
produce this effect, it merely explains it. That this empirical fact
and its explanation boggles your mind is of no consequence to the
universe. Boggled minds never produce effective theories.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
03 Oct 2006 12:00:37 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity,
<>
wrote
on 2 Oct 2006 14:02:16 -0700
<1159822936.599005.148890@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest.
Wrong conclusion Seto--Absolute state are totally unnecessary and there
is no evidence of any absolute reference.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
If no absolute reference why does SR claims that the observer is in a
state of absolute rest??
Hey cretin, it doesn't claim that.
That you read into SR any implication of the existence of a state of
absolute rest is proof of your state of absolute cretinicity. Or of
your maladept marketing skills. Sold any yet?
If theobserver is not in a state of absolute rest then why does he sees
all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow?
Define "see". For a receding clock it does indeed run slow,
if one uses light to "see" the clock.
Fab/Faa = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
However, for an approaching clock, one sees it running fast.
Fab/Faa = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
You are a fucking runt of the SRians ....so *****.
Oh, and we were having such a nice, polite conversation too. :-P
--
#191,
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
28 Sep 2006 09:04:27 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest. Since no observer is in a
state of absolute rest then SR is valid only if the observed frame is
in a higher state of absolute motion then the observer. This is the
reason why SR is valid in accelerator design applications.
So, Ken...
Where does SR talk about absolute rest?
In real life all observers are in different states of absolute motion.
Therefore an observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and some of the clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
This new interpretation leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT.
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A desciprion of IRT
is in the paper entitled "Unification pf Physics" (page 4) in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 12:55:50 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest. Since no observer is in a
state of absolute rest then SR is valid only if the observed frame is
in a higher state of absolute motion then the observer. This is the
reason why SR is valid in accelerator design applications.
So, Ken...
Where does SR talk about absolute rest?
Ken is an activist, he seems to think
think to an inertial frame of reference
has a requirent for a train station and Lucifer
to be a frame of reference.
When all it really needs is a volcanoe and some sulfur.
In real life all observers are in different states of absolute motion.
Therefore an observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and some of the clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
This new interpretation leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT.
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A desciprion of IRT
is in the paper entitled "Unification pf Physics" (page 4) in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 09:27:04 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest. Since no observer is in a
state of absolute rest then SR is valid only if the observed frame is
in a higher state of absolute motion then the observer. This is the
reason why SR is valid in accelerator design applications.
So, Ken...
Where does SR talk about absolute rest?
SR says: At the rest frame of the observer he sees all the clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod moving wrt him are
constracted. That for sure is talking about absolute rest.
In real life all observers are in different states of absolute motion.
Therefore an observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and some of the clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
This new interpretation leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT.
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A desciprion of IRT
is in the paper entitled "Unification pf Physics" (page 4) in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Webb" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 11:58:21 AM |
|
|
Where does SR talk about absolute rest?
SR says: At the rest frame of the observer he sees all the clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod moving wrt him are
constracted. That for sure is talking about absolute rest.
He is not talking about "absolute rest". He is talking about the "rest frame
of the observer". The mere fact that he has to add "... of the observer"
shows that there is nothing "absolute" about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 03:34:22 PM |
|
|
Peter Webb wrote:
Where does SR talk about absolute rest?
SR says: At the rest frame of the observer he sees all the clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod moving wrt him are
constracted. That for sure is talking about absolute rest.
He is not talking about "absolute rest". He is talking about the "rest frame
of the observer". The mere fact that he has to add "... of the observer"
shows that there is nothing "absolute" about it.
But SR asserts that all the clocks in the universe moving wrt the
observer are running slow.....that means that the observer's clock is
the preferred clock and such a clock is in a state of absolute rest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
