 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / December 2006The Problems of SR/GR
The Problems of SR/GR: 1. SR is incomplete. The reason is that it assumes that the observer's clock has the fastest clock rate compared to all the observed clocks in the universe. This assumption is valid only if the observer is in a state of absolute rest. In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest. Therefore the observer's clock can run fast or slow compared to the observed clock. 2. SR assumes that that the leading edge (the first photon) of a laser light ray will hit a small distant detector in the frame of the laser source. This assumption is not valid and it violates the Uncertainty Principle. 3. The SR assumption of reciprocity is not supported by experiment. The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. However, from the GPS location point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is not 7 us/day running slow compared to the GPS clock. 4. GR failed to predict the correct rotational curves for galaxies. 5. The GR concept of gravity failed to predict the observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe. 6. The GR concept of gravity failed to predict the correct path for the spacecraft Pioneer 10. All these problems of SR/GR are resolved by a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. IRT and DTG are described in a paper entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm > The Problems of SR/GR: 1. You don't understand either, as shown with the snipped text.  SignatureJust \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > 4. GR failed to predict the correct rotational curves for galaxies. Who said? Are you on about the one paper where they tried to use it for modelling? I think you are seriously confused - why should GR do any prediction for galactic rotations curves? SignatureJust \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In sci.physics.relativity, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:10:04 +0000 <phineaspuddleduck-9906BE.19100417122006@free.teranews.com>: >> 4. GR failed to predict the correct rotational curves for galaxies. > > Who said? Are you on about the one paper where they tried to use it for > modelling? I think you are seriously confused - why should GR do any > prediction for galactic rotations curves? Why would it not? GR, after all, postulates G = T, although I frankly don't know precisely what that means as I'm not up on tensors. But galaxies have gravity and whirl around a center. There are a few issues, such as the estimation of mass. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234: void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);} -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Why would it not? GR, after all, postulates G = T, although I frankly > don't know precisely what that means as I'm not up on tensors. But > galaxies have gravity and whirl around a center. > > There are a few issues, such as the estimation of mass. For a start, its hardly a relativistic system. The mass of the stars is tiny in relation to that of the galaxy, and their rotational velocities top out at 220 km s^-1 as I recall. The paper I remember reading about it had issues with regards to density in the plane of the galaxy. SignatureJust \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > 5. The GR concept of gravity failed to predict the observed accelerated > expansion of the far reached regions of the universe. Hubble flow? Again, nothing to do with GR. SignatureJust \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The Problems of SR/GR: > > 1. SR is incomplete. The reason is that it assumes that the observer's clock > has the fastest clock rate compared to all the observed clocks in the > universe. This is your lack of understanding, Seto. In SR, relative motion is required for time dilation, i.e., v > 0 . And it holds for all inertial observers. > > The Problems of SR/GR: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > required for time dilation, i.e., v > 0 . And it holds for all inertial > observers. Wormy is 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 sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto >>> The Problems of SR/GR: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ken Seto Actually, Seto, you haven't the foggiest ideas of basic physics, let alone relativity.... seriously! > >>> The Problems of SR/GR: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Actually, Seto, you haven't the foggiest ideas of basic physics, > let alone relativity.... seriously! Seriously womy 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 sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto > Seriously womy you are a runt of the SRians. > Definition for a runt of the SR SRians: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Seto BWHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA Still wondering about spectroscopy Seto? SignatureYou know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his stupidity here! http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics/msg/f9488b70976a3a4b?&hl=en -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >>> The Problems of SR/GR: >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Seriously womy you are a runt of the SRians. Make your mind up crankboi, is he a runt of the SRians or the SR experts? > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Seto Standard SetoRant when he's lost the argument. SignatureYou know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his stupidity here! http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics/msg/f9488b70976a3a4b?&hl=en -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The Problems of SR/GR: are that both are too complicated for *you* to understand. Shame really. Still, when you get over puberty you may have a better shot at it. > > The Problems of SR/GR: > > are that both are too complicated for *you* to understand. > > Shame really. Still, when you get over puberty you may have a better shot at > it. T Wake is 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 sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto > > > The Problems of SR/GR: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Definition for a runt of the SRians: > A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. No, all this "SR=religion" nonsense is pure fabrication of ignorant bums who for some odd reason insist on getting involved with physics (?? of all things) as if no other interesting things existed in life. > 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 sh.t like > gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who > disagrees with SR. Typical rant from a frustrated ignoramus. No content, just expletives. -- Jan Bielawski >>>>The Problems of SR/GR: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > bums who for some odd reason insist on getting involved with physics > (?? of all things) as if no other interesting things existed in life. Hopefully, it keeps them away from jobs involving bridge or aircraft design. Sylvia. > >>>>The Problems of SR/GR: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Hopefully, it keeps them away from jobs involving bridge or aircraft design. Good night, you are so right! :-) -- Jan Bielawski In sci.physics.relativity, JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote on 18 Dec 2006 20:32:38 -0800 <1166502758.790539.191600@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>: >> > > The Problems of SR/GR: >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bums who for some odd reason insist on getting involved with physics > (?? of all things) as if no other interesting things existed in life. Kenseto is partially correct in that one should not accept SR blindly. However, apart from rather esoteric theories such as those resulting from various chirality experiments, I fail to see why SR can't be used in most situations where the velocity is greater than a certain amount, absent such issues as a nearby black hole and/or planet. (Of course SR can be used in such things as car crashes but the results will differ from standard Newtonian physics by 1 part in 10^14 or so, and therefore there's little point in using it there.) >> An idiot who doesn't >> know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Typical rant from a frustrated ignoramus. No content, just expletives. Not many predictions either. :-) His writings are mildly interesting but without predictions they're not all that useful. He does have an interesting one though, if I'm expressing it correctly (his formula got a little muddied in his response to me): f/f0 = (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))*(1-vx/c^2) where f represents frequency as measured from the observer, f0 represents frequency at the light source, and x is a quantity as yet ill-specified. It is possible that x is the wavelength but if so it's largely constant. If x is the clock-to-clock distance this has some interesting (but AFAIK unlikely) theoretical ramifications. The SR prediction is of course f/f0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c). > -- > Jan Bielawski Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, JanPB > <filmart@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > f/f0 = (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))*(1-vx/c^2) Sigh....I don't know where you get the above equation from....certainly not me. Besides the above equation is not dimensionally correct. The left side is a ratio and the right side is second. For the last time here's what I mean: t'= 1/gamma(1-vx/c^2) t'=the length of the pulse as recorded by the ship's clock when the observer sent a 1 second pulse length toward the ship. x= distance between the clocks Ken Seto > where f represents frequency as measured from the observer, > f0 represents frequency at the light source, and x is a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -- > > Jan Bielawski > > > > The Problems of SR/GR: > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bums who for some odd reason insist on getting involved with physics > (?? of all things) as if no other interesting things existed in life. You runts of the SRians certainly treat SR as a religion. > > An idiot who doesn't > > know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Typical rant from a frustrated ignoramus. No content, just expletives. Hey idiot runt....the content is in my original post. This is just a respond to the sh.t T Wake dish out to me. Ken Seto > Hey idiot runt....the content is in my original post. This is just a respond > to the sh.t T Wake dish out to me. > > Ken Seto Poor Ken. His wonderful theory is being ripped to shreds by that horrible reality. Bad Reality! Bad! SignatureYou know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his stupidity here! http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics/msg/f9488b70976a3a4b?&hl=en -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> > > > The Problems of SR/GR: >> > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > respond > to the sh.t T Wake dish out to me. So then, Jedi, your posts in news:4587e9ac$0$11159$4c368faf@roadrunner.com and its predecessors was because I said you were pre-pubescent? When you've posted this little party piece in the past, was that just you looking forward in time to my above post? You are pretty funny, for a cute little kookboi. "JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in sci.astro: > No, all this "SR=religion" nonsense is pure fabrication of ignorant > bums who for some odd reason insist on getting involved with physics > (?? of all things) as if no other interesting things existed in life. For these people it goes that if they can't have their part of history created by scientific and creative minds so far above their level they simply vandalize on that heritage. These are the people who run into a museum and mutilate a painting. Today it's "Einstein is wrong", tomorrow it's "they never went to the Moon". That way they hope history will notice them, their only way to escape their puny little worthless lifes. Leaving such a worthless life, devoid of any contribution to the world around them at all, is hell. At least that's something positive about them: they _know_ they're just worthless pieces of sh*t. And Usenet is their cheap therapy. Have mercy on them. SignatureCeeBee *** Democracy is not a spectator sport *** SR came from other great minds and Einstein put it together with good math. and clear thought. GR was original,and he should have received a Nobel after Eddington proved light bends. How good is GR today If it was a poker hand Einstein would be holding 4 aces. There has been no straight flush(better gravity theory) Curve space needs no field wave,or graviton and none will ever be detected. What makes space bend is the answer to gravitation. Nature uses the curve in just about every thing. That is why my "Spin is in Theory" gives good answers to the mysteries of the universe. So much motion is relative. Accelerated motion = spin motion Accelerating or spin = gravitation Gravitation = inertia All are equivalent. All are used by natures balancing act. All are fined toned to make stable universes. There are as many universes as flakes of snow in an endless storm. Like snow flakes they have great symmetry. That symmetry come from the reality written in this post. Happy New Year to all Bert I do have a "Spin theory for curving space" It fits well with GR and I added to curve concave space(Einstein's geometry my convex space (Glazier's) Concave for attraction for gravitation(local) and convex space for repulsion.of the galaxies Kind of gives gravity a balancing act. It answers hard questions,and my theory is short. Bert >> > The Problems of SR/GR: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who > disagrees with SR Poor old Seto. You have no real understanding of physics but the voices in your head demand you try to discuss it. I quite like your cut and paste attempt at an insult. It is entertaining. Thank you. Hopefully, as you get older you will also see how this is funny rather than insulting. You may also see what it says about you more than anyone else. > T Wake is an idiot runt of the Srians. > Definition for a runt of the SRians: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Seto BWAHAHAHAHHA Spnaked on spectroscopy, and spnaked on RT. SignatureYou know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his stupidity here! http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics/msg/f9488b70976a3a4b?&hl=en -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The Problems of SR/GR: <snipped nonsense> Must be a troll - no one could be this muddle headed. Sylvia. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.