Discussion:
About falsifiability of SR - once again
(too old to reply)
Tom Roberts
2013-12-22 00:32:19 UTC
Permalink
You may take SR in non-inertial frames?
No. You can apply it to non-interial objects moving wrt an inertial frame.
In non-inertial frames you should apply GR
This is not true. SR works perfectly well in non-inertial "frames". But, of
course, the equations become significantly more complicated. One simply applies
a coordinate transform from inertial coordinates to the non-inertial
coordinates, remembering that tensors are invariant under such a transform.

The best discussion of this I know is MTW section 6. While
it is a textbook on GR, this is in the early section on SR.
MTW = Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.

(I put "frame" in quotes, because one cannot construct the usual frame if it is
not inertial -- it is not possible to synchronize the clocks.)


Tom Roberts
Maciej Woźniak
2013-12-22 12:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "Wizard" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:***@217.119.49.38...


|There is, afaik, no equivalent of GR for LET, if you try to apply LET to
|non-inertial frames, LET fails.

SR fails too, and GR is not consistent.

|That is part of the reason why SR is preferred as a theory, because it
|extends to general relativity (ie it is a special case of general
|reletivity when applied to inertial frames), whereas LET does not
|generalise.

Or, at least, You're not able to generalize it.
Maciej Woźniak
2013-12-22 13:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "Wizard" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:***@217.119.49.38...


|There is, afaik, no equivalent of GR for LET, if you try to apply LET to
|non-inertial frames, LET fails.

SR fails too, and GR is not consistent.

|That is part of the reason why SR is preferred as a theory, because it
|extends to general relativity (ie it is a special case of general
|reletivity when applied to inertial frames), whereas LET does not
|generalise.

Or, at least, You're not able to generalize it.
Maciej Woźniak
2013-12-22 16:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "Wizard" napisał w wiadomości grup
|Wild assertions aren't valid arguments
There is no valid arguments for a fanatic.
|You make no valid arguments. You're a crackpot

There is no valid arguments for You. You're a fanatic.
|LET is pretty much dead as a theory due to its
|limitation and inability / difficulty in being generalised
Still there is a small difference of predictions,
|Nope. LET predicts exactly the same things will be measured / observed
|/ seen / experienced as SR

Oh, yes, poor idiot.
that
make LET better decribing reality.
|Nope. LET predicts exactly the same things will be measured / observed
|/ seen / experienced as SR

Oh, yes, poor idiot.
See, in LET there
is no time dilation,but just a clock error, right?
|Nope. LET predicts exactly the same things will be measured / observed
|/ seen / experienced as SR

Oh, yes, poor idiot.
So, LET predicts, that clocks will be corrected as
possible, to indicate t'=t.
|Nope. LET predicts exactly the same things will be measured / observed
|/ seen / experienced as SR

Oh, yes, poor idiot.
SR doesn't.
|Nope. LET predicts exactly the same things will be measured / observed
|/ seen / experienced as SR

Oh, yes, poor idiot. BTW, You've just denied Yourself. Even
an idiot fanatic should sometimes be cautions about things he's
denying.



|You're a moron. Why do you bother posting on subjects about which you
|are so ignorant. Do you enjoy looking like a fool ?

No, but I enjoy seeing an idiot relativist postting on subjects which he
is so ignorant, out of arguments he never had, shouting insults as
a moron he is.
Bruce Evans
2013-12-25 00:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Any measurement of the speed of light must of course use a pre-1983
definition of the meter.
Or in some
Piss off, shit head.
Ditch Huntley
2013-12-25 22:27:48 UTC
Permalink
[ignorant, redundant remarks snipped for good]
Your father shoud have been snipped for good before you were born.
"His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae
West
G :-)
Imbecile, I always knew it you were one. I mean, it was obvious

Wizard lately seen posting from here

NNTP-Posting-Host: gpsuMwPCX8BbBZZTDEC9xQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: ***@aioe.org
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Apparently is not clear enough for everybody what this "australian"
farmer
stands for.
As long he plays a Relativity believer, too stupid to understand shit,
the
selfestablished "Modern Scientists" are still tolerate his presence in
these science forums.
This is just wrong! What a shame!!
"Fuck off you stupid old cunt of a jew who should have dies in the
gas chambers with his useless parents."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Mj8uuWTNGQE/1n1PimnP5KAJ
through
news.synserver.de 1387752901
22 Dec 2013 23:55:01 +0100
posting-host=101.161.43.137
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
or
NNTP-Posting-Host: P5R8oaoiD3RFYTI/I4HfCQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Loading...