Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #549535 > unrolled thread

Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-31 08:26 -0800
    Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) olli.dp3@gmail.com - 2016-01-31 09:50 -0800
      Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-01 14:56 -0800
    Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:28 -0600
      Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-01 13:36 -0800
        Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 17:23 -0600
          Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-03 05:54 -0800
            Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 10:36 -0600
    Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 18:01 -0600
      Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-03 05:34 -0800
        Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:45 -0600
        Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 17:17 +0000
    Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 18:18 -0600
      Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-03 05:41 -0800
        Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:48 -0600
          Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-03 07:29 -0800
            Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:58 -0600
              Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-05 07:16 -0800
                Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:34 -0600
                  Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-05 13:35 -0800
                    Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 16:14 -0600
                      Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-06 05:13 -0800
                        Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 13:42 +0000
                        Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 08:08 -0600
                          Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-06 10:39 -0800
                            Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 12:43 -0600
                            Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:18 -0600
                        Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:05 -0600
                Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:36 -0600
                  Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-05 13:37 -0800
    Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 19:27 -0800
      Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 00:19 -0500
      Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-05 07:34 -0800
    Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 08:26 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#549535 — Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)

IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#549550

What does IRT predict for the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit?  Can you show us the calculation?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549822

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 12:50:41 PM UTC-5, olli...@gmail.com wrote:
> What does IRT predict for the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit?  Can you show us the calculation?

Read the paper. If you want to use IRT math you need to have the values of the variables asked for. If you want to use the GRT math then Model Mechanics provides the physical model for curved spacetime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549609

On 1/31/2016 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an
> unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace
> SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>

At this point I just want to say how amused I am that you seriously 
think that the math of quantum electrodynamics can be explained 
alternately with an explanation involving angels.

This shows to me your complete disdain for the scientific method and a 
complete lack of understanding of how scientific theories work. You 
honestly believe that you can reinterpret any theoretical math to be 
explained any way you want, and that should be considered legitimate.

I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549811

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/31/2016 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an
> > unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace
> > SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >
> 
> At this point I just want to say how amused I am that you seriously 
> think that the math of quantum electrodynamics can be explained 
> alternately with an explanation involving angels.

1. Angel explanation is designed to make fun of the virtual particle/field explanation of the QED math. 
2. Model Mechanics explanation of the QED math: directions of Absolute motions of the interacting particles (or objects) in the E-Matrix give rise to the attractive or repulsive forces and the electric charge of a particle is not the intrinsic properties of the particle. This avoids the infinity problem of QED. 
3. Collapse of wave function in the Schrodinger equation can be replaced by the absolute motion of the detector moving wrt the wave transmitting E-Strings.
   
> 
> This shows to me your complete disdain for the scientific method and a 
> complete lack of understanding of how scientific theories work. You 
> honestly believe that you can reinterpret any theoretical math to be 
> explained any way you want, and that should be considered legitimate.
> 
> I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549825

On 2/1/2016 3:36 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/31/2016 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an
>>> unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace
>>> SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>>
>>
>> At this point I just want to say how amused I am that you seriously
>> think that the math of quantum electrodynamics can be explained
>> alternately with an explanation involving angels.
>
> 1. Angel explanation is designed to make fun of the virtual particle/field explanation of the QED math.

Didn't seem to make fun of anyone but you.

> 2. Model Mechanics explanation of the QED math: directions of Absolute motions of the interacting
> particles (or objects) in the E-Matrix give rise to the attractive or repulsive forces and the electric
> charge of a particle is not the intrinsic properties of the particle. This avoids the infinity problem of QED.

And does no better a job of connecting to QED math than the angels 
explanation.

> 3. Collapse of wave function in the Schrodinger equation can be replaced by the absolute motion of the
> detector moving wrt the wave transmitting E-Strings.
>
>>
>> This shows to me your complete disdain for the scientific method and a
>> complete lack of understanding of how scientific theories work. You
>> honestly believe that you can reinterpret any theoretical math to be
>> explained any way you want, and that should be considered legitimate.
>>
>> I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550201

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 6:23:42 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 3:36 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 1/31/2016 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an
> >>> unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace
> >>> SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >>>
> >>
> >> At this point I just want to say how amused I am that you seriously
> >> think that the math of quantum electrodynamics can be explained
> >> alternately with an explanation involving angels.
> >
> > 1. Angel explanation is designed to make fun of the virtual particle/field explanation of the QED math.
> 
> Didn't seem to make fun of anyone but you.

I pointed out that field/virtual particles can be replaced by the concept of  angels....in fact that concept of angel has an unlimited domain of applicability
So it is a better model than the field/virtual particle model.
Model Mechanics is at par with the angel model. Why? Because Model Mechanics also has an unlimited domain of applicability, including gravity.

> > 2. Model Mechanics explanation of the QED math: directions of Absolute motions of the interacting
> > particles (or objects) in the E-Matrix give rise to the attractive or repulsive forces and the electric
> > charge of a particle is not the intrinsic properties of the particle. This avoids the infinity problem of QED.
> 
> And does no better a job of connecting to QED math than the angels 
> explanation.

Model Mechanics connects to the QED math completely. In addition, Model mechanics leads to a new theory of gravity and therefore it is a better model than field/virtual particles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550233

On 2/3/2016 7:54 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 6:23:42 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/1/2016 3:36 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2016 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an
>>>>> unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace
>>>>> SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At this point I just want to say how amused I am that you seriously
>>>> think that the math of quantum electrodynamics can be explained
>>>> alternately with an explanation involving angels.
>>>
>>> 1. Angel explanation is designed to make fun of the virtual particle/field explanation of the QED math.
>>
>> Didn't seem to make fun of anyone but you.
>
> I pointed out that field/virtual particles can be replaced by the concept of  angels....in fact that
> concept of angel has an unlimited domain of applicability
> So it is a better model than the field/virtual particle model.

And this is what is highly amusing about you and your ideas. You have 
absolutely zero idea what science is or how it works. Geez what a 
pretentious loon.

> Model Mechanics is at par with the angel model. Why? Because Model Mechanics also has an unlimited
> domain of applicability, including gravity.
>
>>> 2. Model Mechanics explanation of the QED math: directions of Absolute motions of the interacting
>>> particles (or objects) in the E-Matrix give rise to the attractive or repulsive forces and the electric
>>> charge of a particle is not the intrinsic properties of the particle. This avoids the infinity problem of QED.
>>
>> And does no better a job of connecting to QED math than the angels
>> explanation.
>
> Model Mechanics connects to the QED math completely. In addition, Model mechanics leads to a new theory of
> gravity and therefore it is a better model than field/virtual particles.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549828

On 1/31/16 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>

   He Seto -- Your IRT has never been tested with experiments or
   observations.  You don't list any results in you tome. There are no
   calculation. There is no data. There are no references.  Methinks
   its a sham.







-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550195

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 7:01:49 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/31/16 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >
> 
>    He Seto -- Your IRT has never been tested with experiments or
>    observations.  You don't list any results in you tome. There are no
>    calculation. There is no data. There are no references.  Methinks
>    its a sham.

Wormy....IRT has the same math as LET and SR for the domain of application that SR and LET are valid. In addition, some new IRT math is valid for use in a gravity environment. That means that IRT is valid for use to replace GRT in cosmology applications. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550199

On 2/3/16 7:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Wormy....IRT has the same math as LET and SR for the domain of
> application that SR and LET are valid. In addition, some new IRT math
> is valid for use in a gravity environment. That means that IRT is
> valid for use to replace GRT in cosmology applications.



   Which is a pretty absurd statement, Seto, as you cannot derive
   any of the equations of special relativity. Oh, you can copy them,
   but you don't understand what the mean, as is obvious in your
   postings of the last twenty years, and your denial of time dilation
   and length contraction. Hell, Seto, you can even understand the
   Twin Paradox.

   Furthermore, you don't have the foggiest idea of the equations of
   general relativity or their application.

   You don't even understand:

Time Dilation of Moving Particles
   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

Tests of general relativity
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Tests of special relativity
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550241

kenseto wrote:

>> > IRT is available in the following link:
>> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>
>>    He Seto -- Your IRT has never been tested with experiments or
>>    observations.  You don't list any results in you tome. There are no
>>    calculation. There is no data. There are no references.  Methinks
>>    its a sham.
> 
> Wormy....IRT has the same math as LET and SR for the domain of
> application that SR and LET are valid. In addition, some new IRT math is
> valid for use in a gravity environment. That means that IRT is valid for
> use to replace GRT in cosmology applications.

We agree. SR is shown to be insufficient, especially at large scale.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549831

On 1/31/16 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>

   Hey Seto -- Quoting from your PDF, "However, the idea of flexible
   time and projected length contraction gives rise to many paradoxes
   and the most famous of these is the familiar twin paradox".

   1. Time dilation and length contraction are observed. Time dilation in
   receding supernovae radioactive element decay times, cosmic ray muons,
   and in particle accelerators.

   2. The twin paradox in not a paradox, as the two twins are not
   symmetric.
   > http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html

   3. It would be helpful, Seto, if you learned some relativity theory,
   because it is obvious you don't understand any of it.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550198

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/31/16 10:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes  LET and SRT as subsets. It has an unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is suitable for use to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >
> 
>    Hey Seto -- Quoting from your PDF, "However, the idea of flexible
>    time and projected length contraction gives rise to many paradoxes
>    and the most famous of these is the familiar twin paradox".
> 
>    1. Time dilation and length contraction are observed. Time dilation in
>    receding supernovae radioactive element decay times, cosmic ray muons,
>    and in particle accelerators.

Time dilation is not observed.....clock physically slowing is observed. Length contraction is never observed...it is assumed as geometric projection and as such is not measurable.

> 
>    2. The twin paradox in not a paradox, as the two twins are not
>    symmetric.
>    > http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html

The argument here is based on numerous assumptions.
> 
>    3. It would be helpful, Seto, if you learned some relativity theory,
>    because it is obvious you don't understand any of it.

It would be helpful, wormy, if you learn some new physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550200

On 2/3/16 7:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Time dilation is not observed.....

   Time dilation and length contraction are observed. Time dilation in
   receding supernovae radioactive element decay times, cosmic ray muons,
   and in particle accelerators.

Time Dilation of Moving Particles
   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550217

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:49:03 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/3/16 7:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Time dilation is not observed.....
> 
>    Time dilation and length contraction are observed. Time dilation in
>    receding supernovae radioactive element decay times, cosmic ray muons,
>    and in particle accelerator.

A clock co-moving with the muon: its clock second will have a longer duration by a factor of gamma. That merely means that a clock second in different frames does not represent the same amount of time. That means that you cannot compare clock seconds in different frames directly to reach the bogus conclusion of time dilation.


> 
> Time Dilation of Moving Particles
>    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550287

On 2/3/16 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:49:03 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/3/16 7:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Time dilation is not observed.....
>>
>>     Time dilation and length contraction are observed. Time dilation in
>>     receding supernovae radioactive element decay times, cosmic ray muons,
>>     and in particle accelerator.

>
> A clock co-moving with the muon: its clock second will have a longer
> duration by a factor of gamma. That merely means that a clock second
> in different frames does not represent the same amount of time. That
> means that you cannot compare clock seconds in different frames
> directly to reach the bogus conclusion of time dilation.
>
>> Time Dilation of Moving Particles
>>     https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
>>

   Student [SETO] understanding of time in special relativity:
   simultaneity and reference frames
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail

> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of
> the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks
> are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
> fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate
> that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have
> serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the
> role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented
> that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which
> the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
> harmoniously co-exis



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550678

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 2:58:18 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/3/16 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:49:03 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 2/3/16 7:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> Time dilation is not observed.....
> >>
> >>     Time dilation and length contraction are observed. Time dilation in
> >>     receding supernovae radioactive element decay times, cosmic ray muons,
> >>     and in particle accelerator.
> 
> >
> > A clock co-moving with the muon: its clock second will have a longer
> > duration by a factor of gamma. That merely means that a clock second
> > in different frames does not represent the same amount of time. That
> > means that you cannot compare clock seconds in different frames
> > directly to reach the bogus conclusion of time dilation.
> >
> >> Time Dilation of Moving Particles
> >>     https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
> >>
> 
>    Student [SETO] understanding of time in special relativity:
>    simultaneity and reference frames
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Wormy failed to recognize that RoS is in direct conflict with the P2. For example in Einstein's train gedanken:
1. The ground observer using RoS claims that the speed of light (or the closing speed of light) in the train is anisotropic.
2. The train observer measures the closing speed of light is isotropic.
3. These contradictory claims is the result of the false assumptions that relative velocity can affect the concept of simu ltaneity.

The proper interpretation is as follows:
1. The ground observer measures two events in his frame to be simultaneous at time T.
2. He uses the LT to transform the time of simultaneity to the train frame and the result is T/gamma. 
3. This means that in the train, identical events will be simultaneous at time T/gamma.


> 
> > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of
> > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks
> > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
> > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate
> > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have
> > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the
> > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented
> > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which
> > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
> > harmoniously co-exis
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550683

On 2/5/2016 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Wormy failed to recognize that RoS is in direct conflict with the P2. For example in Einstein's train gedanken:
> 1. The ground observer using RoS claims that the speed of light (or the closing speed of light) in the train is
> anisotropic.

Einstein never said that the closing speed of light and the speed of 
light mean the same thing. You call them the same, but that's YOUR 
addition and what makes it nonsense. Stop adding stuff out of your own 
head, and it will cease to be nonsense.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550764

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 10:34:21 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/5/2016 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Wormy failed to recognize that RoS is in direct conflict with the P2. For example in Einstein's train gedanken:
> > 1. The ground observer using RoS claims that the speed of light (or the closing speed of light) in the train is
> > anisotropic.
> 
> Einstein never said that the closing speed of light and the speed of 
> light mean the same thing. You call them the same, but that's YOUR 
> addition and what makes it nonsense. Stop adding stuff out of your own 
> head, and it will cease to be nonsense.

Idiot....there is no such thing as different closing speeds for light. That's why that it is not measurable. The actual speed of light is measurable to be isotropic and therefore the so call closing speed of light is the same as the speed of light.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web