Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT

On Apr 18, 2:20 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:45 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 17, 1:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 17, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 16, 6:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:40 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 15, 2:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


That's a bit presumptuous, don't you think? That's a little like
saying that Dostoevsky didn't have a full understanding of Crime >and Punishment.

Not presumptuous at all. Both Lorentz and Einstein did not fully
understand motion. Specfically they didn't understand that relative
motion is derived from individual motions.


It's not. I don't know where you get the idea that it is.

Sure it is. You and I are standing side by side with no relative
motion between us. Relative motion between us can occur only if:
1. I started moving individually.
2. You started moving individually.
3. both of us started moving individually.


Also Einstein's definition
of time (time is what the clock measures) is incomplete....it leads to
all sorts of paradoxes.

There's not a single paradox that stems from relativity. What paradox
do you have in mind?
Keep in mind what a paradox is. A paradox is NOT something you do not
understand. A paradox is something that looks to be self-
contradictory.
Now, what do you think is self-contradictory in relativity?

The paradoxes are:
1. From the GPS point of view the ground clock is approx 7 us/day
running fast.
2. The twin paradox.
3. The pole and the barn paradox.



Much like
SR have evolved since Einstein invented it.

First of all, Einstein didn't *invent* it, he *discovered* it. What he
did is *discover* some of the rules that nature works by.

Secondly, even though SR has evolved, none of the basic physical
principles that Einstein wrote down have changed since he first looked
at it.

But the rules he discovered requires physicists to modify the
measuring units to fit those rules.

It required no such thing. Relativity would be alive today if the
definition of the meter had never changed.

It would not be alive if the physical meter length is used to measure
the one-way speed of light directly.

However, the standard for
the meter suffered already from the difficulties of not being as
precise, as durable, or as replicable as was required.

Any theory that posits that the one-way speed of light is isotropic c
and refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly is
questionable. Besides, a clock second to measure the speed of light is
a rubber second. It has different duration in different frames.

It is the
standards committee's job to choose a standard that is as precise, as
durable, and as replicable as possible, to meet the needs of
scientific measurement. Once relativity was tested (BEFORE the
redefinition of the meter), it was found, via isotropy and 2-way light-
speed measurements, that the speed of light is constant.

No they redefine the meter to guarantee that the speed of light is
isotropic c to fit the theory.

Ken Seto


This opened a
new opportunity to the standards committee to define a new standard of
the meter that would be more precise, more durable, and more
replicable than the standard in use at the time. Your knowledge of the
history of physics and the standards bureau is abysmal.



For example: Einstein discovered
the rule that the speed of light is a universal constant and
physicists had to redefine the definition for a meter (1 meter =
1/299,792,458 light second) to fit that rule.

Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... motion is derived from individual motions. ... Keep in mind what a paradox is. ... what do you think is self-contradictory in relativity? ... It would not be alive if the physical meter length is used to measure ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: on origin of inertia
    ... if you allow that the SI definition of 'meter' does depend on ... > Then you do not understand principle of relativity (just like many, ... travelling" (i.e. spacetime flow) up to a constant vector. ... readings of clocks and meter sticks is the relative motion - the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: on origin of inertia
    ... if you allow that the SI definition of 'meter' does depend on ... > Then you do not understand principle of relativity (just like many, ... travelling" (i.e. spacetime flow) up to a constant vector. ... readings of clocks and meter sticks is the relative motion - the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Twin Paradox in Special Relativity
    ... the twin paradox in special relativity. ... Suppose there is a stationary clock a at point A and another stationary ... The paradox seems to arise when we consider the above motion from the ... But according to special relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
    ... vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. ... specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian ... we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. ... "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. ...
    (sci.math)