| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2007 04:08:58 AM |
| Object: |
WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a22394b?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
Roberts Roberts you are absolutely right. Many physicists have devoted
their lives to trying to find a hole in your four Postulates but
failed. Now most (if not all) physicists know:
It is impossible to find a hole in Tom Roberts' four Postulates and
therefore we all should believe UNCONDITIONALLY in special
relativity.
As for disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence,
Roberts Roberts you are absolutely right again:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Roberts Roberts let me say it again: Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo
Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer the Albert
Einstein of our generation)!
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
28 Apr 2007 09:37:41 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177751337.946689.110720@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a22394b?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
The hole in the four postulates are as follows:
1. It assumes that the unit of measuring time (a clock second) is a
universal unit of time. IOW a clock second has the same duration in all
frames of reference.
2. It assumes that the unit of measuring length (1/299,792,458 light-second)
is a universal unit of length. It is not because a clock second has
different duration in different frames.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
28 Apr 2007 11:33:00 AM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 6:37 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177751337.946689.110720@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a2...
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
The hole in the four postulates are as follows:
1. It assumes that the unit of measuring time (a clock second) is a
universal unit of time. IOW a clock second has the same duration in all
frames of reference.
No, that is what you assume. It is wrong.
2. It assumes that the unit of measuring length (1/299,792,458 light-second)
is a universal unit of length. It is not because a clock second has
different duration in different frames.
No, that is what you assume. It is wrong.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
28 Apr 2007 11:02:56 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177751337.946689.110720@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a22394b?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
The hole in the four postulates are as follows:
1. It assumes that the unit of measuring time (a clock second) is a
universal unit of time. IOW a clock second has the same duration in all
frames of reference.
Why do atomic clocks on GPS satellites require correction to
match their earthbound brothers?
2. It assumes that the unit of measuring length (1/299,792,458 light-second)
is a universal unit of length. It is not because a clock second has
different duration in different frames.
You've completely missed the context of "frame of reference."
You prefer to use the entire universe as a single frame of
reference. Science has discovered that's not true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
28 Apr 2007 01:20:25 PM |
|
|
<nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:80ad1$4633702c$cdd0852b$26830@DIALUPUSA.NET...
kenseto wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177751337.946689.110720@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a22394b?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
The hole in the four postulates are as follows:
1. It assumes that the unit of measuring time (a clock second) is a
universal unit of time. IOW a clock second has the same duration in all
frames of reference.
Why do atomic clocks on GPS satellites require correction to
match their earthbound brothers?
Because after acceleration the GPS clock second has a different duration
than the ground clock second. In any case the GPS clock destroys Roberts'
postulates and destroys the idea of SR reciprocity and symmetry.
2. It assumes that the unit of measuring length (1/299,792,458
light-second)
is a universal unit of length. It is not because a clock second has
different duration in different frames.
You've completely missed the context of "frame of reference."
You prefer to use the entire universe as a single frame of
reference. Science has discovered that's not true.
No I didn't miss anything. Clocks in relative motion are in different
frames. Different frames means different states of absolute motion. The
higher is the state of absolute motion of a clock the slower is the clock
rate. I have no idea why you say that I prefer to use the entire universe as
a single frame.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
29 Apr 2007 04:53:00 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 11:20 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:80ad1$4633702c$cdd0852b$26830@DIALUPUSA.NET...> kenseto wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177751337.946689.110720@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a2...
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
The hole in the four postulates are as follows:
1. It assumes that the unit of measuring time (a clock second) is a
universal unit of time. IOW a clock second has the same duration in all
frames of reference.
Why do atomic clocks on GPS satellites require correction to
match their earthbound brothers?
Because after acceleration the GPS clock second has a different duration
than the ground clock second. In any case the GPS clock destroys Roberts'
postulates and destroys the idea of SR reciprocity and symmetry.
2. It assumes that the unit of measuring length (1/299,792,458
light-second)
is a universal unit of length. It is not because a clock second has
different duration in different frames.
You've completely missed the context of "frame of reference."
You prefer to use the entire universe as a single frame of
reference. Science has discovered that's not true.
No I didn't miss anything. Clocks in relative motion are in different
frames. Different frames means different states of absolute motion. The
higher is the state of absolute motion of a clock the slower is the clock
rate. I have no idea why you say that I prefer to use the entire universe as
a single frame.
Because you use the phrase "absolute motion" which is commonly
interpreted to mean "in motion WRT a frame against which all motion
can be referenced", IOW that it is at rest WRT all motion everywhere.
What absolute reference frame do you have in mind that all motion can
be can be considered relative to, if not the entire universe?
If you have some other absolute frame in mind, please describe
unambiguously how to boost any particular clock (say, one at rest on
Earth's surface) so as to bring it to rest (cancel its relative
motion) WRT that absolute frame.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
30 Apr 2007 11:39:12 AM |
|
|
"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177883580.034829.147090@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 11:20 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:80ad1$4633702c$cdd0852b$26830@DIALUPUSA.NET...> kenseto wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177751337.946689.110720@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a2...
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you
truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
The hole in the four postulates are as follows:
1. It assumes that the unit of measuring time (a clock second) is a
universal unit of time. IOW a clock second has the same duration in
all
frames of reference.
Why do atomic clocks on GPS satellites require correction to
match their earthbound brothers?
Because after acceleration the GPS clock second has a different duration
than the ground clock second. In any case the GPS clock destroys
Roberts'
postulates and destroys the idea of SR reciprocity and symmetry.
2. It assumes that the unit of measuring length (1/299,792,458
light-second)
is a universal unit of length. It is not because a clock second has
different duration in different frames.
You've completely missed the context of "frame of reference."
You prefer to use the entire universe as a single frame of
reference. Science has discovered that's not true.
No I didn't miss anything. Clocks in relative motion are in different
frames. Different frames means different states of absolute motion. The
higher is the state of absolute motion of a clock the slower is the
clock
rate. I have no idea why you say that I prefer to use the entire
universe as
a single frame.
Because you use the phrase "absolute motion" which is commonly
interpreted to mean "in motion WRT a frame against which all motion
can be referenced", IOW that it is at rest WRT all motion everywhere.
What absolute reference frame do you have in mind that all motion can
be can be considered relative to, if not the entire universe?
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and absolute
motion is that motion of an object wrt the light waves in the ether. Doppler
shift is evidence for absolute motion. Relative motion is derived from
absolute motion (individual motion).
If you have some other absolute frame in mind, please describe
unambiguously how to boost any particular clock (say, one at rest on
Earth's surface) so as to bring it to rest (cancel its relative
motion) WRT that absolute frame.
There is no need to locate the absolute frame (the ether frame). In fact it
is impossible to do so. In SR and IRT the observer's clock second is also
defined as a defined absolute second. The clock value for a defined absolute
second in any other frame is calculated using SR or IRT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
30 Apr 2007 11:42:19 AM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and absolute
motion is that motion of an object wrt the light waves in the ether.
But this statement is contradicted by all experiments to date. Dr.
Seto, you are showing your weakness on experimental data again. You
more than compensate this weakness with your strength in logic.
Doppler
shift is evidence for absolute motion.
Of course this is mistaken, like everything else that you state about
experimental data. If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
In SR and IRT the observer's clock second is also
defined as a defined absolute second. The clock value for a defined absolute
second in any other frame is calculated using SR or IRT.- Hide quoted
The "R" in SR stands for relative. What does the "R" in IRT stand for?
Absolute? Retarded?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
01 May 2007 08:10:38 AM |
|
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and
absolute
motion is that motion of an object wrt the light waves in the ether.
But this statement is contradicted by all experiments to date. Dr.
Seto, you are showing your weakness on experimental data again. You
more than compensate this weakness with your strength in logic.
Wrong my statement contradicts no experiment. It agrees with all
experiments. Relative velocity between two objects A and B is the vector
difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector
component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
Doppler
shift is evidence for absolute motion.
Of course this is mistaken, like everything else that you state about
experimental data.
You are an idiot. Wavelength of the incoming light is a universal constant
and therefore any observed frequency shift is due to the varying speed of
incoming light.
If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
You SRians don't use Doppler shift to detect absolute motion because you
must maintain the SR postulate that the speed of light is a universal
constant. In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
In SR and IRT the observer's clock second is also
defined as a defined absolute second. The clock value for a defined
absolute
second in any other frame is calculated using SR or IRT.- Hide quoted
The "R" in SR stands for relative. What does the "R" in IRT stand for?
Absolute? Retarded?
You are a fucking idiot runt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
01 May 2007 08:52:06 AM |
|
|
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and
absolute
motion is that motion of an object wrt the light waves in the ether.
But this statement is contradicted by all experiments to date. Dr.
Seto, you are showing your weakness on experimental data again. You
more than compensate this weakness with your strength in logic.
Wrong my statement contradicts no experiment. It agrees with all
experiments. Relative velocity between two objects A and B is the vector
difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector
component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Doppler
shift is evidence for absolute motion.
Of course this is mistaken, like everything else that you state about
experimental data.
You are an idiot. Wavelength of the incoming light is a universal constant
and therefore any observed frequency shift is due to the varying speed of
incoming light.
Umm, no, the speed of light is a universal constant, by definition.
The wave length varies, this is why the color of the light also
varies, red for receding, blue for appraoching. Remember those high
school experiments? Wait, you never finished high school, you didn't
even get to matrix multiplication in tenth grade, you are home
schooled.
If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
You SRians don't use Doppler shift to detect absolute motion because you
must maintain the SR postulate that the speed of light is a universal
constant. In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
So, once again, do you plan to run any experiment to prove your point?
Until u do that you are in a minority of ONE.
In SR and IRT the observer's clock second is also
defined as a defined absolute second. The clock value for a defined
absolute
second in any other frame is calculated using SR or IRT.- Hide quoted
The "R" in SR stands for relative. What does the "R" in IRT stand for?
Absolute? Retarded?
You are a fucking idiot runt.
Now, no need to start insulting, you tend to do that every time you
are proven wrong. Means that you lost the argument, I am just trying
to help you out of your permanent cretinism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
01 May 2007 09:39:45 AM |
|
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and
absolute
motion is that motion of an object wrt the light waves in the ether.
But this statement is contradicted by all experiments to date. Dr.
Seto, you are showing your weakness on experimental data again. You
more than compensate this weakness with your strength in logic.
Wrong my statement contradicts no experiment. It agrees with all
experiments. Relative velocity between two objects A and B is the vector
difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector
component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the units of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants. Unfortunately for you
they are not.:-)
Doppler
shift is evidence for absolute motion.
Of course this is mistaken, like everything else that you state about
experimental data.
You are an idiot. Wavelength of the incoming light is a universal
constant
and therefore any observed frequency shift is due to the varying speed
of
incoming light.
Umm, no, the speed of light is a universal constant, by definition.
ROTFLOL....yeah by the circular definition of: (1 light-second/1 second).
The wave length varies, this is why the color of the light also
varies, red for receding, blue for appraoching.
No the wavelength for a specific light source such as the sodium is a
universal constant. Everybody defines the wavelength of his sodium source to
be 589 nm. During the transit of light there is nothing that could affect
this wavelength. During the transit of light the speed of incoming light can
be affected by the absolute motion of the observer.
The color of incoming light varies because the number of light waves
(frequency) arriving to the detector varies.
The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame. The
grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source.
Remember those high
school experiments? Wait, you never finished high school, you didn't
even get to matrix multiplication in tenth grade, you are home
schooled.
Hey idiot....matrix multiplication is based on the bogus assumption that the
units of measureing space and time are universal constant. how many time do
I have to tell you that?
If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
You SRians don't use Doppler shift to detect absolute motion because you
must maintain the SR postulate that the speed of light is a universal
constant. In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
So, once again, do you plan to run any experiment to prove your point?
Until u do that you are in a minority of ONE.
You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
01 May 2007 09:52:19 AM |
|
|
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and
absolute
motion is that motion of an object wrt the light waves in the ether.
But this statement is contradicted by all experiments to date. Dr.
Seto, you are showing your weakness on experimental data again. You
more than compensate this weakness with your strength in logic.
Wrong my statement contradicts no experiment. It agrees with all
experiments. Relative velocity between two objects A and B is the vector
difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector
component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the units of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants. Unfortunately for you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
Doppler
shift is evidence for absolute motion.
Of course this is mistaken, like everything else that you state about
experimental data.
You are an idiot. Wavelength of the incoming light is a universal
constant
and therefore any observed frequency shift is due to the varying speed
of
incoming light.
Umm, no, the speed of light is a universal constant, by definition.
ROTFLOL....yeah by the circular definition of: (1 light-second/1 second)
The fact that you don't understand such a simple issue is a blemish on
your otherwise illustrious scientific career.
The wave length varies, this is why the color of the light also
varies, red for receding, blue for appraoching.
No the wavelength for a specific light source such as the sodium is a
universal constant.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
During the transit of light the speed of incoming light can
be affected by the absolute motion of the observer.
Absolute motion? What does "R" in your IRT stand for? Retardation?
Remember those high
school experiments? Wait, you never finished high school, you didn't
even get to matrix multiplication in tenth grade, you are home
schooled.
Hey idiot....matrix multiplication is based on the bogus assumption that the
units of measureing space and time are universal constant. how many time do
I have to tell you that?
No, matrix multiplication is not based on any physical assumptions. It
is math, the fact that you never got to that point in your high school
education is a sad fact.
If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
You SRians don't use Doppler shift to detect absolute motion because you
must maintain the SR postulate that the speed of light is a universal
constant. In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
So, once again, do you plan to run any experiment to prove your point?
Until u do that you are in a minority of ONE.
You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
Now, you start swearing again, you little *****.Not nice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
02 May 2007 08:07:36 AM |
|
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants. Unfortunately for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental support for it.
Matrix multiplication is a useless math concept is valid only if the units
of measuring space (light-second) and time (clock second) are universal
constants.....since these units are not universal constants then matrix
multiplication is not valid in real life..
You are an idiot. Wavelength of the incoming light is a universal
constant
and therefore any observed frequency shift is due to the varying
speed
of
incoming light.
Umm, no, the speed of light is a universal constant, by definition.
ROTFLOL....yeah by the circular definition of: (1 light-second/1 second)
The fact that you don't understand such a simple issue is a blemish on
your otherwise illustrious scientific career.
What is there is understand? Are you arguing that the defined speed of light
(1 light-second/1 second) is not a circular definition?
The wave length varies, this is why the color of the light also
varies, red for receding, blue for appraoching.
No the wavelength for a specific light source such as the sodium is a
universal constant.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the incoming light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving speeds of the
incoming waves.
During the transit of light the speed of incoming light can
be affected by the absolute motion of the observer.
Absolute motion? What does "R" in your IRT stand for? Retardation?
Idiot runt comment.
Remember those high
school experiments? Wait, you never finished high school, you didn't
even get to matrix multiplication in tenth grade, you are home
schooled.
Hey idiot....matrix multiplication is based on the bogus assumption that
the
units of measureing space and time are universal constant. how many time
do
I have to tell you that?
No, matrix multiplication is not based on any physical assumptions. It
is math, the fact that you never got to that point in your high school
education is a sad fact.
This shows me that you don't understand that all math concepts are based on
some specfic assumptions. In the case of matrix algebra it is assumed that
the units of measuring space and time are universal constants.
If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a
thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
You SRians don't use Doppler shift to detect absolute motion because
you
must maintain the SR postulate that the speed of light is a
universal
constant. In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio
as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the
absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
So, once again, do you plan to run any experiment to prove your point?
Until u do that you are in a minority of ONE.
You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
Now, you start swearing again, you little *****.Not nice.
You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
02 May 2007 10:32:58 AM |
|
|
.... A simply because, they do have to believe in a something, due to an
inability along any attempt to move further, and this what is all about, a
simply as that.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46388bdb$0$8997$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is
part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants. Unfortunately
for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental support for it.
Matrix multiplication is a useless math concept is valid only if the units
of measuring space (light-second) and time (clock second) are universal
constants.....since these units are not universal constants then matrix
multiplication is not valid in real life..
You are an idiot. Wavelength of the incoming light is a universal
constant
and therefore any observed frequency shift is due to the varying
speed
of
incoming light.
Umm, no, the speed of light is a universal constant, by definition.
ROTFLOL....yeah by the circular definition of: (1 light-second/1
second)
The fact that you don't understand such a simple issue is a blemish on
your otherwise illustrious scientific career.
What is there is understand? Are you arguing that the defined speed of
light
(1 light-second/1 second) is not a circular definition?
The wave length varies, this is why the color of the light also
varies, red for receding, blue for appraoching.
No the wavelength for a specific light source such as the sodium is a
universal constant.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the incoming light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving speeds of
the
incoming waves.
During the transit of light the speed of incoming light can
be affected by the absolute motion of the observer.
Absolute motion? What does "R" in your IRT stand for? Retardation?
Idiot runt comment.
Remember those high
school experiments? Wait, you never finished high school, you didn't
even get to matrix multiplication in tenth grade, you are home
schooled.
Hey idiot....matrix multiplication is based on the bogus assumption
that
the
units of measureing space and time are universal constant. how many
time
do
I have to tell you that?
No, matrix multiplication is not based on any physical assumptions. It
is math, the fact that you never got to that point in your high school
education is a sad fact.
This shows me that you don't understand that all math concepts are based
on
some specfic assumptions. In the case of matrix algebra it is assumed that
the units of measuring space and time are universal constants.
If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a
thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
You SRians don't use Doppler shift to detect absolute motion
because
you
must maintain the SR postulate that the speed of light is a
universal
constant. In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio
as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the
absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
So, once again, do you plan to run any experiment to prove your
point?
Until u do that you are in a minority of ONE.
You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
Now, you start swearing again, you little *****.Not nice.
You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
02 May 2007 09:24:15 AM |
|
|
On May 2, 6:07 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants. Unfortunately for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental support for it.
Wrong, Symmetry is OBSERVED in nature for every physical behavior.
Matrix multiplication is a useless math concept is valid only if the units
of measuring space (light-second) and time (clock second) are universal
constants.....since these units are not universal constants then matrix
multiplication is not valid in real life..
Wrong again, I will not bother to explain why, it was explained to you
countless times.
You are an idiot. Wavelength of the incoming light is a universal
constant
and therefore any observed frequency shift is due to the varying
speed
of
incoming light.
Umm, no, the speed of light is a universal constant, by definition.
ROTFLOL....yeah by the circular definition of: (1 light-second/1 second)
The fact that you don't understand such a simple issue is a blemish on
your otherwise illustrious scientific career.
What is there is understand? Are you arguing that the defined speed of light
(1 light-second/1 second) is not a circular definition?
This is not how it is defined: c is defined as 299,....meters/second.
This was explained to you countless times as well.
The wave length varies, this is why the color of the light also
varies, red for receding, blue for appraoching.
No the wavelength for a specific light source such as the sodium is a
universal constant.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the incoming light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving speeds of the
incoming waves.
Speed does not affect color, wavelength (or frequency) does. This was
known for hundreds of years.
During the transit of light the speed of incoming light can
be affected by the absolute motion of the observer.
Absolute motion? What does "R" in your IRT stand for? Retardation?
Idiot runt comment.
You mean you are an idiot runt who created a retarded theory? This
much is becoming apparent.
Remember those high
school experiments? Wait, you never finished high school, you didn't
even get to matrix multiplication in tenth grade, you are home
schooled.
Hey idiot....matrix multiplication is based on the bogus assumption that
the
units of measureing space and time are universal constant. how many time
do
I have to tell you that?
No, matrix multiplication is not based on any physical assumptions. It
is math, the fact that you never got to that point in your high school
education is a sad fact.
This shows me that you don't understand that all math concepts are based on
some specfic assumptions. In the case of matrix algebra it is assumed that
the units of measuring space and time are universal constants.
You keep repeating certain idiocies, like the one above. Repeating idiocies doesn't make them correct, you should know that by now, it makes you look uneducated.Did you flunk out of high school after 9-th grade? Are you home schooled?
If that were true, someone would have used the
Doppler effect to detect absolute motion. No one has done such a
thing
to date. Do you plan such an experiment yourself, dr. Seto?
You SRians don't use Doppler shift to detect absolute motion because
you
must maintain the SR postulate that the speed of light is a
universal
constant. In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio
as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the
absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
So, once again, do you plan to run any experiment to prove your point?
Until u do that you are in a minority of ONE.
You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
Now, you start swearing again, you little *****.Not nice.
You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
I see, you confirmed that you are a *****. I told you that this would
happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
03 May 2007 08:50:20 AM |
|
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178115855.470857.285160@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 6:07 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is
part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the
units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants. Unfortunately
for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental support for
it.
Wrong, Symmetry is OBSERVED in nature for every physical behavior.
Name one physical behavior that shows symmetry.
Matrix multiplication is a useless math concept is valid only if the
units
of measuring space (light-second) and time (clock second) are universal
constants.....since these units are not universal constants then matrix
multiplication is not valid in real life..
Wrong again, I will not bother to explain why, it was explained to you
countless times.
Not wrong. Matrix multplication is not valid in relativity because the units
of measuring space and time are not universal constants.
ROTFLOL....yeah by the circular definition of: (1 light-second/1
second)
The fact that you don't understand such a simple issue is a blemish on
your otherwise illustrious scientific career.
What is there is understand? Are you arguing that the defined speed of
light
(1 light-second/1 second) is not a circular definition?
This is not how it is defined: c is defined as 299,....meters/second.
This was explained to you countless times as well.
Sure that's how it is defined. A meter is defined as 1/299,792,458
light-second.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the incoming light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving speeds of
the
incoming waves.
Speed does not affect color, wavelength (or frequency) does. This was
known for hundreds of years.
Sure speed affects color. The grating can be used to measure the arriving
speed of the incoming light as follows:
c' = (detected incoming frequency)(universal wavelength)
ALSO
d*sin(theta)=c'/(detected incoming frequency)
Therefore:
c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)]
I have to tell you that?
No, matrix multiplication is not based on any physical assumptions. It
is math, the fact that you never got to that point in your high school
education is a sad fact.
This shows me that you don't understand that all math concepts are based
on
some specfic assumptions. In the case of matrix algebra it is assumed
that
the units of measuring space and time are universal constants.
You keep repeating certain idiocies, like the one above. Repeating
idiocies doesn't make them correct, you should know that by now, it makes
you look uneducated.Did you flunk out of high school after 9-th grade? Are
you home schooled?
Hey idiot runt ....so you think that matrix algebra is not based on the
bogus assumptions that the units of measuring space and time are universal
constants?
You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
03 May 2007 09:33:16 AM |
|
|
On May 3, 6:50 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178115855.470857.285160@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 6:07 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry is
part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the
units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants. Unfortunately
for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental support for
it.
Wrong, Symmetry is OBSERVED in nature for every physical behavior.
Name one physical behavior that shows symmetry.
1.Conservation of momentum
2. Conservation of angular momentum
3. Conservation of energy
Do you need more?
Matrix multiplication is a useless math concept is valid only if the
units
of measuring space (light-second) and time (clock second) are universal
constants.....since these units are not universal constants then matrix
multiplication is not valid in real life..
Wrong again, I will not bother to explain why, it was explained to you
countless times.
Not wrong. Matrix multplication is not valid in relativity because the units
of measuring space and time are not universal constants.
Matrix multiplication is part of an universal science called algebra.
The fact that you cut school early and didn't get algebra in school is
precluding you for achieving your full potential as a scientist.
ROTFLOL....yeah by the circular definition of: (1 light-second/1
second)
The fact that you don't understand such a simple issue is a blemish on
your otherwise illustrious scientific career.
What is there is understand? Are you arguing that the defined speed of
light
(1 light-second/1 second) is not a circular definition?
This is not how it is defined: c is defined as 299,....meters/second.
This was explained to you countless times as well.
Sure that's how it is defined. A meter is defined as 1/299,792,458
light-second.
Nope, you continue to get this wrong. A meter is defined as the
distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Do you see
the difference? No? This is why you can't realise your full potential
as a scientist.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the incoming light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving speeds of
the
incoming waves.
Speed does not affect color, wavelength (or frequency) does. This was
known for hundreds of years.
Sure speed affects color. The grating can be used to measure the arriving
speed of the incoming light as follows:
c' = (detected incoming frequency)(universal wavelength)
ALSO
d*sin(theta)=c'/(detected incoming frequency)
Therefore:
c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)]
Please use the c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)] in
order to explain:
1. Ives-Stilwell
2. Sagnac
3. Gagnon
Please use math, not your "fables". This is the 4-th time you are
being asked to back up your claims with math.
I have to tell you that?
No, matrix multiplication is not based on any physical assumptions. It
is math, the fact that you never got to that point in your high school
education is a sad fact.
This shows me that you don't understand that all math concepts are based
on
some specfic assumptions. In the case of matrix algebra it is assumed
that
the units of measuring space and time are universal constants.
You keep repeating certain idiocies, like the one above. Repeating
idiocies doesn't make them correct, you should know that by now, it makes
you look uneducated.Did you flunk out of high school after 9-th grade? Are
you home schooled?
Hey idiot runt ....so you think that matrix algebra is not based on the
bogus assumptions that the units of measuring space and time are universal
constants?
It was explained to you multiple times, if you never went past 9-th
grade, there is little chance you'll understand algebra.
You are a runt of the SR experts.
Ken Seto
Mr. Seto, this was explained to you several times, what you are is
spelled with a "c", why do you keep misspelling it? Did you fail
spelling as well? Are you home schooled?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
03 May 2007 04:59:14 PM |
|
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178202796.469455.318080@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 6:50 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178115855.470857.285160@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 6:07 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry
is
part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the
units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants.
Unfortunately
for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental support
for
it.
Wrong, Symmetry is OBSERVED in nature for every physical behavior.
Name one physical behavior that shows symmetry.
1.Conservation of momentum
2. Conservation of angular momentum
3. Conservation of energy
Non of these shows symmetry between frames. A measures the speed of light is
a constant math ratio c and B measures the speed of light is a constant math
ratio c. But A's c_A and B's c_B cannot be compared with each other
directly. Why? Because the passage of an A's clock second does not
correspond to the passage of a B's clock second.
Wrong again, I will not bother to explain why, it was explained to you
countless times.
Not wrong. Matrix multplication is not valid in relativity because the
units
of measuring space and time are not universal constants.
Matrix multiplication is part of an universal science called algebra.
The fact that you cut school early and didn't get algebra in school is
precluding you for achieving your full potential as a scientist.
This shows me that you don't even understand that matrix multiplication is
based on the false assumption that the units of measuring space and time are
universal constant. Since these units are not universal constant therfore
Matrix multiplication between frame is not valid. Besides there is no
application for matrix application.
This is not how it is defined: c is defined as 299,....meters/second.
This was explained to you countless times as well.
Sure that's how it is defined. A meter is defined as 1/299,792,458
light-second.
Nope, you continue to get this wrong. A meter is defined as the
distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Do you see
the difference? No? This is why you can't realise your full potential
as a scientist.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see
light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the incoming
light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving
speeds of
the
incoming waves.
Speed does not affect color, wavelength (or frequency) does. This was
known for hundreds of years.
Sure speed affects color. The grating can be used to measure the
arriving
speed of the incoming light as follows:
c' = (detected incoming frequency)(universal wavelength)
ALSO
d*sin(theta)=c'/(detected incoming frequency)
Therefore:
c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)]
Please use the c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)] in
order to explain:
1. Ives-Stilwell
2. Sagnac
3. Gagnon
Please use math, not your "fables". This is the 4-th time you are
being asked to back up your claims with math.
Why should I do anything for you??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
03 May 2007 05:21:36 PM |
|
|
On May 3, 2:59 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178202796.469455.318080@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 6:50 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178115855.470857.285160@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 6:07 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric. Symmetry
is
part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that the
units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants.
Unfortunately
for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law, like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental support
for
it.
Wrong, Symmetry is OBSERVED in nature for every physical behavior.
Name one physical behavior that shows symmetry.
1.Conservation of momentum
2. Conservation of angular momentum
3. Conservation of energy
Non of these shows symmetry between frames. A measures the speed of light is
a constant math ratio c and B measures the speed of light is a constant math
ratio c. But A's c_A and B's c_B cannot be compared with each other
directly. Why? Because the passage of an A's clock second does not
correspond to the passage of a B's clock second.
Of course, you are...wrong , as always. "Conservation" is independent
of frame of reference. Unless, of course, if you are working with IRT.
What does "R" stand for? Retardation?
Wrong again, I will not bother to explain why, it was explained to you
countless times.
Not wrong. Matrix multplication is not valid in relativity because the
units
of measuring space and time are not universal constants.
Matrix multiplication is part of an universal science called algebra.
The fact that you cut school early and didn't get algebra in school is
precluding you for achieving your full potential as a scientist.
This shows me that you don't even understand that matrix multiplication is
based on the false assumption that the units of measuring space and time are
universal constant. Since these units are not universal constant therfore
Matrix multiplication between frame is not valid. Besides there is no
application for matrix application.
You need to get past 9-th grade, do you think they'll accept you back
in high school, Alzheime and everything already full blown?
This is not how it is defined: c is defined as 299,....meters/second.
This was explained to you countless times as well.
Sure that's how it is defined. A meter is defined as 1/299,792,458
light-second.
Nope, you continue to get this wrong. A meter is defined as the
distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Do you see
the difference? No? This is why you can't realise your full potential
as a scientist.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You see
light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession, don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the incoming
light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving
speeds of
the
incoming waves.
Speed does not affect color, wavelength (or frequency) does. This was
known for hundreds of years.
Sure speed affects color. The grating can be used to measure the
arriving
speed of the incoming light as follows:
c' = (detected incoming frequency)(universal wavelength)
ALSO
d*sin(theta)=c'/(detected incoming frequency)
Therefore:
c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)]
Please use the c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)] in
order to explain:
1. Ives-Stilwell
2. Sagnac
3. Gagnon
Please use math, not your "fables". This is the 4-th time you are
being asked to back up your claims with math.
Why should I do anything for you??
Not for me. For yourself. Until you do it , you have nothing in terms
of theory. Your IRT is an empty shell if you and it cannot explain a
few experiments. Stop trying to weasel out and do some calculations.
No calculations...no IRT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
03 May 2007 06:06:13 PM |
|
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178230896.724189.265170@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 2:59 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178202796.469455.318080@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 6:50 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178115855.470857.285160@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 6:07 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178031139.712296.261300@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 7:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178027526.866994.264850@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177951339.949879.159950@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:
All objects in the universe are in a state of
absolute
motion
and
absolute
Of course it does, the laws of physics are symmetric.
Symmetry
is
part
of the universe, it was explained to you multiple times.
Symmetry is an assumption based on the bogus assumption that
the
units
of
measuring time (a clock second) and the unit of measuring
length
(1/299,792,458 light-second) are universal constants.
Unfortunately
for
you
they are not.:-)
We've been over this many times. Symmetry is a universal law,
like
matrix multiplication. You need to learn both.
No....symmetry is an assumed law. There is no experimental
support
for
it.
Wrong, Symmetry is OBSERVED in nature for every physical behavior.
Name one physical behavior that shows symmetry.
1.Conservation of momentum
2. Conservation of angular momentum
3. Conservation of energy
Non of these shows symmetry between frames. A measures the speed of
light is
a constant math ratio c and B measures the speed of light is a constant
math
ratio c. But A's c_A and B's c_B cannot be compared with each other
directly. Why? Because the passage of an A's clock second does not
correspond to the passage of a B's clock second.
Of course, you are...wrong , as always. "Conservation" is independent
of frame of reference. Unless, of course, if you are working with IRT.
What does "R" stand for? Retardation?
Why don't you show us the the SR calculations how symmetry give us these
conservation laws and I will show how the IRT calculations.
BTW you are a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Wrong again, I will not bother to explain why, it was explained to
you
countless times.
Not wrong. Matrix multplication is not valid in relativity because
the
units
of measuring space and time are not universal constants.
Matrix multiplication is part of an universal science called algebra.
The fact that you cut school early and didn't get algebra in school is
precluding you for achieving your full potential as a scientist.
This shows me that you don't even understand that matrix multiplication
is
based on the false assumption that the units of measuring space and time
are
universal constant. Since these units are not universal constant
therfore
Matrix multiplication between frame is not valid. Besides there is no
application for matrix application.
You need to get past 9-th grade, do you think they'll accept you back
in high school, Alzheime and everything already full blown?
This is not how it is defined: c is defined as
299,....meters/second.
This was explained to you countless times as well.
Sure that's how it is defined. A meter is defined as 1/299,792,458
light-second.
Nope, you continue to get this wrong. A meter is defined as the
distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Do you see
the difference? No? This is why you can't realise your full potential
as a scientist.
How come that this "universal constant" of yours varies? You
see
light
color shifted to blue for approach and to red for recession,
don't
you. Do you suffer from Daltonism?
The universal wavelength does not vary. The speed of the
incoming
light
varies. The different colors are due to the different arriving
speeds of
the
incoming waves.
Speed does not affect color, wavelength (or frequency) does. This
was
known for hundreds of years.
Sure speed affects color. The grating can be used to measure the
arriving
speed of the incoming light as follows:
c' = (detected incoming frequency)(universal wavelength)
ALSO
d*sin(theta)=c'/(detected incoming frequency)
Therefore:
c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)]
Please use the c'= [(detected incoming frequency)][d*sin(theta)] in
order to explain:
1. Ives-Stilwell
2. Sagnac
3. Gagnon
Please use math, not your "fables". This is the 4-th time you are
being asked to back up your claims with math.
Why should I do anything for you??
Not for me. For yourself. Until you do it , you have nothing in terms
of theory. Your IRT is an empty shell if you and it cannot explain a
few experiments. Stop trying to weasel out and do some calculations.
No calculations...no IRT.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
