ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs dont understand SR.

ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.

For Example:
1. SRian PD and Randy said that length contraction is real and measurable
and SRian Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric effect much
like you see me to be shorter from a distance and I see you to be shorter
from a distance. A correct aether theory agrees with what Robert said with
qualification. A correct aether theory would say that the physical length of
a rod will remain the same in all frames. However the light path length of a
rod is different in different frames. The SR *projected length contraction*
is equivalent to *longer light path length* for a moving rod in the correct
aether theory. The correct aether theory also said that an *observed* rod
can have *shorter light path length* than the observ's rod...... SR has no
equivalent to this and that's why SR is incomplete.

2. SRian AllYou said: The passage of a clock second in any frame is exactly
the same as the passage of a clock second in every other frame. AllYou's
assertion disagrees with what Alan Lightman said in his book. In Alan
Lightman's book "Great Idea in Physics" he said: A second as measured by one
clock corresponds to less than a second as measured by another clock in
motion with respect to the first. A correct aether theory would agree with
what Lightman said with qualification. A correct aether theory would say
that a second as measured by one clock can correspond to *less than a
second* OR *more than a second* as measured by another clock in motion with
respect to the first.

For a description of a correct aether theory please read the paper in the
following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.


An interesting comment from you, Seto, who posting record indicates
a very poor understanding of SR.

"kenseto" wrote in message . ..
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.

For Example:
1. SRian PD and Randy said that length contraction is real and measurable
and SRian Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric effect much
like you see me to be shorter from a distance and I see you to be shorter
from a distance.

Yes, a real and measurable geometric effect.
Congratulations, although you don't understand any of the words,
you finally managed to reproduce something someone told you.
You *are* making progress after all.
Do mind the floor though.

Dirk Vdm

kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.

For Example:
1. SRian PD and Randy said that length contraction is real and measurable
and SRian Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric effect much
like you see me to be shorter from a distance and I see you to be shorter
from a distance.

Yes. Now if you can understand why those are equivalent
statements, you will have made progress.

2. SRian AllYou said: The passage of a clock second in any frame is exactly
the same as the passage of a clock second in every other frame.

Correct.

AllYou's
assertion disagrees with what Alan Lightman said in his book. In Alan
Lightman's book "Great Idea in Physics" he said: A second as measured by one
clock corresponds to less than a second as measured by another clock in
motion with respect to the first.

Is this an exact quote? It sounds more like Seto language than
something a physicist would say. Too vague to be interpreted
unambiguously.

- Randy

kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.

For Example:
1. SRian PD and Randy said that length contraction is real and measurable
and SRian Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric effect much
like you see me to be shorter from a distance and I see you to be shorter
from a distance. A correct aether theory agrees with what Robert said with
qualification. A correct aether theory would say that the physical length of
a rod will remain the same in all frames. However the light path length of a
rod is different in different frames. The SR *projected length contraction*
is equivalent to *longer light path length* for a moving rod in the correct
aether theory. The correct aether theory also said that an *observed* rod
can have *shorter light path length* than the observ's rod...... SR has no
equivalent to this and that's why SR is incomplete.

2. SRian AllYou said: The passage of a clock second in any frame is exactly
the same as the passage of a clock second in every other frame. AllYou's
assertion disagrees with what Alan Lightman said in his book. In Alan
Lightman's book "Great Idea in Physics" he said: A second as measured by one
clock corresponds to less than a second as measured by another clock in
motion with respect to the first. A correct aether theory would agree with
what Lightman said with qualification. A correct aether theory would say
that a second as measured by one clock can correspond to *less than a
second* OR *more than a second* as measured by another clock in motion with
respect to the first.

For a description of a correct aether theory please read the paper in the
following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto

This is typical of Seto.
1. "Two SRians posting here say things that to me don't look to be the
same, though they both say they are the same. This means that they
don't understand SR."
2. "An SRian says something that looks to me like it disagrees with a
one-sentence statement in a popularization I once read about SR. This
means he doesn't understand SR."

Seto would rather stick to reading his coffee-table popularizations and
what people say about SR in newsgroups to learn SR than to sit down and
work through a more serious book about it or (gasp) audit a class about
it at Central State University or Wilberforce University. If he can't
make sense out of what popularizations say about SR, or what people on
the newsgroups say about SR, then SR must be flawed. Have I got that
about right, Ken?

PD

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:3tkFg.141486$1i1.84291@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.


An interesting comment from you, Seto, who posting record indicates
a very poor understanding of SR.

I am merely pointing out the contradictory understanding of SR among you
SRians. My understanding of SR is irrelevant.

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...

kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.

For Example:
1. SRian PD and Randy said that length contraction is real and
measurable
and SRian Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric effect
much
like you see me to be shorter from a distance and I see you to be
shorter
from a distance.

Yes. Now if you can understand why those are equivalent
statements, you will have made progress.

Those are not equivalent statements.

Yes they are.

Your statement says that the observed
rod is really contracted physically.

This misinterpretation has been repeatedly pointed out to you. You
still don't get it. You never will.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...

kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.

For Example:
1. SRian PD and Randy said that length contraction is real and
measurable
and SRian Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric effect
much
like you see me to be shorter from a distance and I see you to be
shorter
from a distance.

Yes. Now if you can understand why those are equivalent
statements, you will have made progress.

Those are not equivalent statements. Your statement says that the observed
rod is really contracted physically. Roberts' statement says that the
projection of the observed rod onto the observer's frame is shorter than the
physical length of the observer's rod.


2. SRian AllYou said: The passage of a clock second in any frame is
exactly
the same as the passage of a clock second in every other frame.

Correct.

AllYou's
assertion disagrees with what Alan Lightman said in his book. In Alan
Lightman's book "Great Idea in Physics" he said: A second as measured by
one
clock corresponds to less than a second as measured by another clock in
motion with respect to the first.

Is this an exact quote?

Yes page 120.

It sounds more like Seto language than
something a physicist would say. Too vague to be interpreted
unambiguously.

Wrong again.....I am merely pointing out the contradictory claims made by
you SRians. I really think that you guys do this on purpose to make sure
that you have an out.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:3tkFg.141486$1i1.84291@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.


An interesting comment from you, Seto, who posting record indicates
a very poor understanding of SR.

I am merely pointing out the contradictory understanding of SR among you
SRians. My understanding of SR is irrelevant.

They are not contradictory. Roberts and I both pointed that out to you.
You don't understand how that is possible. That is because you
understand little.

PD

kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL....Most SRians in these NGs don't understand SR.

For Example:
1. SRian PD and Randy said that length contraction is real and measurable
and SRian Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric effect much
like you see me to be shorter from a distance and I see you to be shorter
from a distance. A correct aether theory agrees with what Robert said with
qualification. A correct aether theory would say that the physical length of
a rod will remain the same in all frames. However the light path length of a
rod is different in different frames. The SR *projected length contraction*
is equivalent to *longer light path length* for a moving rod in the correct
aether theory. The correct aether theory also said that an *observed* rod
can have *shorter light path length* than the observ's rod...... SR has no
equivalent to this and that's why SR is incomplete.

Rotate the rod in a plane perpendicular to your line of sight. The rod
doesn't appear to change it's length. Now rotate the rod in one of the
two planes perpendicular to first plane and it will appear to undergo
length contraction. Is the rod actually shrinking? No. If you were
in the frame of the rod and kept measuring it's length, you would see
no change. That's whats called proper length. Same goes for lengths
and time in a hyperbolic Lorentz rotation.

2. SRian AllYou said: The passage of a clock second in any frame is exactly
the same as the passage of a clock second in every other frame. AllYou's
assertion disagrees with what Alan Lightman said in his book. In Alan
Lightman's book "Great Idea in Physics" he said: A second as measured by one
clock corresponds to less than a second as measured by another clock in
motion with respect to the first. A correct aether theory would agree with
what Lightman said with qualification. A correct aether theory would say
that a second as measured by one clock can correspond to *less than a
second* OR *more than a second* as measured by another clock in motion with
respect to the first.

You're confusing a time standard with the concept of time itself. A
second is defined exactly the same regardless of frame. Time
intervals, which are the number of seconds measured by a clock, are
what play a role in the Lorentz transformation. They will not be
frame-invariant.