Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space (the aether or the E-Matrix).
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions: 1.
Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute
rest [...]
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT
is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
3. Please read my book before comment.
Ken Seto wrote:
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is
included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
3. Please read my book before comment.
Lisa Heaven is not 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆, you lying thief. They not for nothing
bombed your country with 2 atomic bombs.
𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_2_–_𝗔𝗙𝗗_𝗠𝗣
Resuming energy flows from Russia will help stave off deindustrialization, Steffen Kotre says https://r%74.com/business/585508-germany-needs-nord-stream/
It’s kind of amazing to see Russia go from a world powerhouse to a petty colony in just over one year. Right now, there is no food in supermarkets.
Germany should have invoked article 5 when nazi Russia
blew up Nordstream
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space
(the aether or the E-Matrix). And thus every SR observer faultily assumes that a clock moving wrt him is running slower.
In real life a clock moving wrt the observer is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma or faster rate of gamma.
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma or faster rate of gamma.
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space (the aether or the E-Matrix). And thus every SR observer faultily assumes that a clock moving wrt him is running slower. In real life a clock moving wrt the observer
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
3. Please read my book before comment.
Thank you ,
Ken Seto
On 10/23/23 12:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions: 1.
Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute
rest [...]
This is just plain not true -- SR makes no such "assumption", indeed
this is nonsensical in SR.
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT
is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
3. Please read my book before comment.No need. You are CLEARLY incompetent, and whatever you write is useless.
Tom Roberts
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:SR makes no such assumption.ow come
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space
(the aether or the E-Matrix). And thus every SR observer faultily assumes that a clock moving wrt him is running slower.Therefore, N/A.
In real life a clock moving wrt the observer is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma or faster rate of gamma.N/A.
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.You are wasting your time.
--
Jan
how come every SR observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him
are running slow?
On 10/27/23 5:33 PM, Ken Seto wrote:At their usual rate have no meaning.....you are assuming that a clock second contains an
how come every SR observer claims that all clocks moving wrt himThey don't. Anyone who understands modern physics knows that all clocks ALWAYS run at their usual rate,
are running slow?
never "slowing" (or speeding up). Such
people recognize that when observing a moving clock BY PROJECTING ITS
TICKS ONTO THEIR INERTIAL REST FRAME they will OBSERVE the moving clock
to tick more slowly than their coordinate clocks; that of course does
not affect how the clock ITSELF is ticking.
You REALLY need to learn what SR actually says, rather than repeatedly making the same silly arguments AGAINST YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
Ken Seto wrote:is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma or faster rate of gamma.
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space (the aether or the E-Matrix). And thus every SR observer faultily assumes that a clock moving wrt him is running slower. In real life a clock moving wrt the observer
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
3. Please read my book before comment.
Thank you ,
Ken Seto
can you post a link, please?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unmet website that contains the linkaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:SR makes no such assumption.ow come
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space
Then how come a clock moving wrt the SR observer runs at a slower rate of 1/gamma?
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:23 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:SR makes no such assumption.ow come
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space
Then how come a clock moving wrt the SR observer runs at a slower rate of 1/gamma?It doesn't run at a slower rate. Its rate is measured to be slower by a different
clock.
The source of this phenomenon is unknown
On 10/27/23 5:33 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
how come every SR observer claims that all clocks moving wrt himThey don't. Anyone who understands modern physics knows that all clocks ALWAYS run at their usual rate, never "slowing" (or speeding up). Such
are running slow?
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:observer is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma or faster rate of gamma.
Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space (the aether or the E-Matrix). And thus every SR observer faultily assumes that a clock moving wrt him is running slower. In real life a clock moving wrt the
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
3. Please read my book before comment.
Thank you ,
Ken Seto
can you post a link, please?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unmet website that contains the linkaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
For reasons unknown, Microsoft destroyed my website that contains the link for my book. I tried to reactiveate the site but failed.
However, Amazon saw the value of my book and they post my book in their site. I can open their link as follows:
Amazon_Book Online(1).pdf
If you can't get the book in the above link, I can email it to you.
Ken Seto
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:SR makes no such assumption.
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space
(the aether or the E-Matrix). And thus every SR observer faultily assumes that a clock moving wrt him is running slower.Therefore, N/A.
In real life a clock moving wrt the observer is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma or faster rate of gamma.N/A.
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.You are wasting your time.
On 10/27/23 5:33 PM, Ken Seto wrote:Yes they do.....text book says that a clock moving wrt the SR observer is accumulating clock second by a factor of 1/gamma.
how come every SR observer claims that all clocks moving wrt himThey don't.
are running slow?
Anyone who understands modern physics knows that all clocks
ALWAYS run at their usual rate, never "slowing" (or speeding up). Such
people recognize that when observing a moving clock BY PROJECTING ITS
TICKS ONTO THEIR INERTIAL REST FRAME they will OBSERVE the moving clock
to tick more slowly than their coordinate clocks; that of course does
not affect how the clock ITSELF is ticking.
You REALLY need to learn what SR actually says, rather than repeatedly
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:23 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:SR makes no such assumption.ow come
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space
Then how come a clock moving wrt the SR observer runs at a slower rate of 1/gamma?It doesn't run at a slower rate. Its rate is measured to be slower by a different
clock. (Reread the last sentence until you see why this is a very different claim
that the sentence preceding it.)
modelled mathematically in terms of certain geometry. The immediately observableThe source of this phenomena is due to the different clocks are in different states of absolute motions.
"reason" is that the speed of light is in a certain well-defined experimental
sense an invariant.
Einstein was the first to notice this correlation. Physicists before him thought
only that there was something peculiar about Maxwell's equations, and they quantified
this peculiarity. But they didn't see the more direct correlation with space and time.
--
Jan
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:23 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions:SR makes no such assumption.ow come
1. Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute rest in space
Then how come a clock moving wrt the SR observer runs at a slower rate of 1/gamma?It doesn't run at a slower rate. of 1/gamma
Its rate is measured to be slower by a different/
clock. (Reread the last sentence until you see why this is a very different claim
that the sentence preceding it.)
The source of this phenomenon is unknown,It is known.....it is due to different states of absolute motion between the two clocks.
all we know so far is that it can be sused to include absolute
modelled mathematically in terms of certain geometry. The immediately observable
"reason" is that the speed of light is in a certain well-defined experimental
sense an invariant.
Einstein was the first to notice this correlation. Physicists before him thought
only that there was something peculiar about Maxwell's equations, and they quantified
this peculiarity. But they didn't see the more direct correlation with space and time.
--
Jan
Ken Seto wrote:
Then how come a clock moving wrt the SR observer runs at a slowerIt doesn't run at a slower rate. of 1/gamma
rate of 1/gamma?
It does. It accumulates clock seconds at a rate 1/gamma) compare to your clock (the SR observer.)
Ken Seto wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 5:42:56 PM UTC-4, Jon Michael Jatzyshin
wrote:
Ken Seto wrote:
that's not the same thing, you stupid fuck. Think.Then how come a clock moving wrt the SR observer runs at a slowerIt doesn't run at a slower rate. of 1/gamma
rate of 1/gamma?
It does. It accumulates clock seconds at a rate 1/gamma) compare to
your clock (the SR observer.)
Hey stupid fuck face.......so accumulating clock second at a rate of 1/gamma is not a slower rate?you have to prove it, 𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲, by a described procedure. Describe it, you
fucking uneducated idiot.
On 10/23/23 12:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
Their failures are based on the following faulty assumptions: 1.
Every SR observer is faultily assumed to be in a state of absolute
rest [...]
This is just plain not true -- SR makes no such "assumption", indeed
this is nonsensical in SR.
2. I have formulated a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT
is included in My book: Model Mechanics :The Final Theory.
3. Please read my book before comment.No need. You are CLEARLY incompetent, and whatever you write is useless.
Tom Roberts
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to him are
running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:I don't accept these double talking because you assumed that a clock second is an
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to him are running slow by a factor of 1/gama????NOBODY who understands SR predicts that, because SR predicts that every clock always runs at its usual rate.
But they also predict that if I
measure the rate of a moving clock using my inertial rest frame, I will MEASURE it to run at 1/gamma times its usual rate. This is NOT the clock t rates.
itself, this is a measure't accept this ment in SOME OTHER INERTIAL FRAME.
It's unfortunate how many times you have been told this, and yet you
keep making the same false claim. It seems you are unable to read. How sad.
On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to him are running slow by a factor of 1/gama????NOBODY who understands SR predicts that, because SR predicts that every
clock always runs at its usual rate.
The Shit is falsified by GPS clocks running at
9 192 631 774 instead 9 192 631 770.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:04:03 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:I don't accept these double talking because you assumed that a clock
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to himNOBODY who understands SR predicts that, because SR predicts that
are running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
every clock always runs at its usual rate.
second is an absolute interval of time......it is not.
Also every clock always runs at its usual rate has no meaning.
It is better to say that every relative clock accumulate clock
seconds at different rates.
On 11/5/23 10:20 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:04:03 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:Doesn't matter. Every Cs-133 atomic clock ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz,
On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:I don't accept these double talking because you assumed that a clock second is an absolute interval of time......it is not.
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to himNOBODY who understands SR predicts that, because SR predicts that
are running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
every clock always runs at its usual rate.
On 11/5/23 11:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
The Shit is falsified by GPS clocks running atI have no idea what you mean by "The Shit",
9 192 631 774 instead 9 192 631 770.
but General Relativity is
CONFIRMED by the rate of GPS satellite clocks.
On 11/5/23 10:20 AM, Ken Seto wrote:9,19
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:04:03 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:Doesn't matter. Every Cs-133 atomic clock ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz,
On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:I don't accept these double talking because you assumed that a clock second is an absolute interval of time......it is not.
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to himNOBODY who understands SR predicts that, because SR predicts that
are running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
every clock always runs at its usual rate.
because that is the definition of the second. This is completely
independent of whatever you mean by "absolute interval of time" (a
phrase you have NEVER defined sufficiently precisely).
Also every clock always runs at its usual rate has no meaning.Sure it does. It negates your claim that "moving clocks run slow". For Cs-133 atomic clocks, their usual rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz; other types
of clocks have different usual rates.es.
It is better to say that every relative clock accumulate cl oBUT THEY DON'T. Every Cs-133 clock accumulates ticks at 9,192,631,770
seconds at different rates.
Hz, independent of how it might be moving or where it might be located.
You keep confusing what a clock does with how it is observed/measured
from SOME OTHER INERTIAL FRAME. They are NOT the same.
I give up; don't expect me to continue until you learn how to read, and learn basic physics.
On Monday, 6 November 2023 at 04:35:26 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
but General Relativity is
CONFIRMED by the rate of GPS satellite clocks.
And another lie. You've said yourself - The Shit is
predicting clocks to run everywhere at the same rate.
In GPS they're not, the prediction is falsified, goodbye,
The Shit.
On 11/6/2023 12:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 6 November 2023 at 04:35:26 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
but General Relativity is
CONFIRMED by the rate of GPS satellite clocks.
And another lie. You've said yourself - The Shit isI realize educating you is a lost cause, but I'll repeat anyway:
predicting clocks to run everywhere at the same rate.
In GPS they're not, the prediction is falsified, goodbye,
The Shit.
board a GPS satellite, 1 second is equal to 9,192,631,770 cycles of its
as slightly slower than 1 pulse per second. This value was deliberately chosen so
On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to him are
running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
The correct statement is that every INERTIAL OBSERVER (i.e., every
person who is stationary in an inertial frame) will conclude (by
actual measurement, with help by other people stationary in his
frame) that any clock moving with respect to him will run slower
that his own clocks, by the factor gamma.
On 11/6/23 4:52 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
The correct statement is that every INERTIAL OBSERVER (i.e., every["that" => "than"]
person who is stationary in an inertial frame) will conclude (by
actual measurement, with help by other people stationary in his
frame) that any clock moving with respect to him will run slower
that his own clocks, by the factor gamma.
That is NOT correct, and they will conclude that only if they are
idiots who don't understand SR. Yes, their MEASUREMENTS will be slower
There is no initial frame on earth..On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to him are
running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
The correct statement is that every INERTIAL OBSERVER (i.e., every
person who is stationary in an inertial frame) will conclude (by actual measurement, with help by other people stationary in his frame) that any clock moving with respect to him will run slower that his own clocks, by
the factor gamma.
On 11/6/23 4:52 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
The correct statement is that every INERTIAL OBSERVER (i.e., every
person who is stationary in an inertial frame) will conclude (by
actual measurement, with help by other people stationary in his frame)
that any clock moving with respect to him will run slower
than his own clocks, by the factor gamma.
[...] (Tom replies):
Yes, their MEASUREMENTS will be slower
than their own clocks, but that has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the moving
clocks [...]
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:04:03 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to him areNOBODY who understands SR predicts that, because SR predicts that every
running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
clock always runs at its usual rate.
I don't accept these double talking because you assumed that a clock
second is an absolute interval of time......it is not.
Doesn't matter. Every Cs-133 atomic clock ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz,
because that is the definition of the second. This is completely
independent of whatever you mean by "absolute interval of time" (a
phrase you have NEVER defined sufficiently precisely).
Also every clock always runs at its usual rate has no meaning.
Sure it does. It negates your claim that "moving clocks run slow". For >>Cs-133 atomic clocks, their usual rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz; other types
of clocks have different usual rates.
It is better to say that every relative clock accumulate clock seconds at
different rates.
BUT THEY DON'T. Every Cs-133 clock accumulates ticks at 9,192,631,770
Hz, independent of how it might be moving or where it might be located.
You keep confusing what a clock does with how it is observed/measured
from SOME OTHER INERTIAL FRAME. They are NOT the same.
I give up; don't expect me to continue until you learn how to read, and
learn basic physics.
Sure, that's the SR *interpretation* of the Lorentz transform, [...] Its only an *assumption* that the clocks tick independent of inertial
frame, based on the POR
Another equally valid interpretation is that clocks do what they are
actually measured to do, and run at different rates. This leads to, as
one alternative, the Lorentz Ether Theory
[SR's] "space-time" is physically real,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 69:55:33 |
| Calls: | 8,084 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,069 |
| Messages: | 5,849,722 |