Why is the rate of an observed clock is observer dependent???

[kenseto]

I see that since I refuted your claims in the another thread about your
supposed absolute motion, that you don't have anything to say there any
more
.. so you've run off to here.

I didn't run off at all....

Yes ... you did.  You were soundly thrashed and then ran off

you made the stupid assertion that A and C
move with the same velocity wrt B but in the opposite direction wrt
B.....B will predict that they have different gamma factors.

That is what IRT says ... unless B is at absolute rest (which you claim is
impossible)

No idiot that's not what IRT says. IRT says that the rate of a clock
is dependent on its state of absolute motion. When B and C accelerated
equally they will have the same state of absolute motion and therefore
they will have the same clock rate. Direction of relative motion of A
and C wrt B got nothing to do with the rates of clocks A and C.

Since you
are so stupid I decided not to waste time educating you.

In other words .. you ran away because I'd beaten you.  I've refuted all
your lies.  Now you have to lie about what I said and run away again.

Get a life....kid.

[kenseto]

Hey idiot...IRT gives the same predictions as SRT in the case where
SRT is valid. So how is that my arguemment is a loser?

No .. because IRT says that when comparing clocks, one is always
absolutely
slower than the other (ie A measure B as slower than A, B measures A as
faster than B).

No idiot....IRT says that an IRT observer will predict that an
observed clock can run slow or fast compare to his clock.

Depending on which has the greater absolute motion .. the greater the
absolute motion, the slower the clock .. just as I said.  You keep saying
'no idiot' and then agreeing with what I'd said anyway.

Hey idiot did you notice that the IRT observer does not claim that an
observed clock can only runs slow???

And you very statement above PROVES that IRT is in conflict with SRT: SRT
says the observed clock is *always* slower

Hey idiot this claim is correct only in cases where the observed clock
is in a higher state of absolute motion. IRT also makes this claim if
the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion.

.. IRT says it can be faster in
some cases (where the observed clock has lower absolute motion). In those
cases, where IRT says it is faster, it contradicts SRT and so IRT cannot
possibly be a superset of SRT because there are scenarios where they predict
totally different results.  

Yes IRT also claims that an observed clock can run faster if it is in
a lower state of absolute motion. This does not mean that it is
conflicting with SR....it just mean that SR is an incomplete theory.
Gee you are so stupid.

Ken Seto

Your lies and inconsistency are outed once
again.  You really should think your nonsense through before you post it.

What you are referring to is that if you know absolutely that A is
running faster than B than B must predict that A is running faster
than B.

Which SRT does *not* predict .. hence SRT is NOT a subset of IRT.  QED

SRT does not predict that.

An SRT observer only predicts that all observed clocks are running
slow and this prediction is included as part of the IRT predictions.

So IRT says that all observed clocks are running slow as well?  It must do
if it is a superset of SRT (ie it must include every prediction SRT makes).
If not, then it does NOT predict the same thing as SRT and so IRT is not a
superset

Therefore IRT is NOT a superset

Yes it is.

No .. I just proved it isn't , you moron

of SRT because it predicts DIFFERENT results from SRT for the same
scenario
where SRT applies

No it didn't predict different results.

Yes it does .. SRT predicts (for interially moving clocks) that if A
measures B as slower then B measures A as slower.  IRT predicts that if A
measures B as slower then B measures A as faster.  That is NOT the same.

Once again your lies are easily refuted.

Gee you are stupid.

Far smarter than you .. I refute all your nonsense.  And have just done so
again..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[kenseto]

It doesn't aplly to light neither. Look at the light clock.... SR
claims that the light path in a moving light clock follows a diagonal
path....this is wrong. The light path in a moving light clock is
vertical in all frames.

That is utter nonsense.

It is you who is utter nonsense.

A light clock uses a very short pulse.  In theory just a single point of
light .. one photon, but in practice it has a very small finite length (ie
its a short sequence of successively emitted photons .. or a finite length
of EM wave etc depending on what you think light is .. it doesn't really
matter for this discussion).

That's right a very short pulse of light will move vertically and it
will miss the target if the target is moving. That's why a moving
light clock will take a longer time (duration) to complete a cycle.

The pulse itself has the same (vertical) alignment in all frames but the
pulse follows a diagonal path in frames where the clock is moving.

No idiot....the initial pulses will miss the target....the number of
pulses miss the target is depended on the speed of the light clock
(absolute motion of the light clock).

Just like shooting an arrow straight up... in all frames the arrow is
observed as aligned vertically .. but from the frame of (say) a moving car
observing it, the arrow travels takes a parabolic path.

No idiot....light pulses are not like arrows.

Ken Seto

You don't seem to get the difference between the path taken by something
(the set (or locus) of its location of the object over a period of time) and
its alignment (its orientation in space at a given time)
You've been told all this before and had your nonsense corrected .. and you
still keep lying about it.  Have you nothing better to do, and no ability to
learn?  Apparently not.

[k***@erinet.com]

Hey idiot...IRT gives the same predictions as SRT in the case where
SRT is valid. So how is that my arguemment is a loser?

No .. because IRT says that when comparing clocks, one is always
absolutely
slower than the other (ie A measure B as slower than A, B measures A as
faster than B).

No idiot....IRT says that an IRT observer will predict that an
observed clock can run slow or fast compare to his clock.

Depending on which has the greater absolute motion .. the greater the
absolute motion, the slower the clock .. just as I said.  You keep saying
'no idiot' and then agreeing with what I'd said anyway.
And you very statement above PROVES that IRT is in conflict with SRT: SRT
says the observed clock is *always* slower ..

Hey idiot....that's why SR is incomplete. IRT says that an observed
clock runs slower is one of the possibility.

IRT says it can be faster in
some cases (where the observed clock has lower absolute motion). In those
cases, where IRT says it is faster, it contradicts SRT

No idiot it doesn't mean that it contrdicts SRT....it means that SRT
is a subset of IRT.

and so IRT cannot
possibly be a superset of SRT because there are scenarios where they predict
totally different results.  Your lies and inconsistency are outed once
again.  You really should think your nonsense through before you post it.

Hey idiot....IRT predicts the same result if the observed clock is
truly running slower than the observer's clock.. IRT predicts a
different result if the observed clock is truly running faster than
the observer's clock.

Ken Seto

Ken Seto

What you are referring to is that if you know absolutely that A is
running faster than B than B must predict that A is running faster
than B.

Which SRT does *not* predict .. hence SRT is NOT a subset of IRT.  QED

SRT does not predict that.

An SRT observer only predicts that all observed clocks are running
slow and this prediction is included as part of the IRT predictions.

So IRT says that all observed clocks are running slow as well?  It must do
if it is a superset of SRT (ie it must include every prediction SRT makes).
If not, then it does NOT predict the same thing as SRT and so IRT is not a
superset

Therefore IRT is NOT a superset

Yes it is.

No .. I just proved it isn't , you moron

of SRT because it predicts DIFFERENT results from SRT for the same
scenario
where SRT applies

No it didn't predict different results.

Yes it does .. SRT predicts (for interially moving clocks) that if A
measures B as slower then B measures A as slower.  IRT predicts that if A
measures B as slower then B measures A as faster.  That is NOT the same.

Once again your lies are easily refuted.

Gee you are stupid.

Far smarter than you .. I refute all your nonsense.  And have just done so
again..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[kenseto]

Post by kenseto

you made the stupid assertion that A and C
move with the same velocity wrt B but in the opposite direction wrt
B.....B will predict that they have different gamma factors.

That is what IRT says ... unless B is at absolute rest (which you claim
is
impossible)

No idiot that's not what IRT says.

Yes .. it does .. you don't know what your own theory says

Post by kenseto
IRT says that the rate of a clock is dependent on its state
of absolute motion. When B and C accelerated  equally
they will have the same state of absolute motion and
therefore they will have the same clock rate.

Only if they are accelerated in the same direction --or-- if they were
absolutely at rest before they started

Hey idiot....there is no direction of absolute motion in isotropic
aether. You are so stupid.

Ken Seto

eg lets look at B and C together and moving with the same absolution motion
(in the x-direction)
BC
----BC
--------BC
now we make B and C move away from each other uniformly
-----------B--C
--------------B----C
-----------------B------C
You can clearly see that B and C have DIFFERENT absolute motion.  Your
nonsense is refuted again
And note: we were talking about A and C moving away in opposite directions
.. not B and C .. and as B is not at absolute rest according to you, that
means A and C will NOT have the same absolute motion.  So A and C will NOT
have the same clock rates.
That is direct contradiction with SR

Post by kenseto
Direction of relative motion of A
and C wrt B got nothing to do with the rates of clocks A and C.

Of course it does, you moron.  UNLESS B is at absolute rest.  The direction
of ABSOLUTE motion of A and C don't make a difference.  But direction of
relative motion DOES.

Post by kenseto

Since you
are so stupid I decided not to waste time educating you.

In other words .. you ran away because I'd beaten you.  I've refuted all
your lies.  Now you have to lie about what I said and run away again.

Get a life....kid.

I ain't no kid .. I have a life .. and you are a cowardly lying moron

[kenseto]

Post by kenseto

"kenseto"  wrote in message

"kenseto"  wrote in message

Hey idiot...IRT gives the same predictions as SRT in the case where
SRT is valid. So how is that my arguemment is a loser?

No .. because IRT says that when comparing clocks, one is always
absolutely
slower than the other (ie A measure B as slower than A, B measures A
as
faster than B).

No idiot....IRT says that an IRT observer will predict that an
observed clock can run slow or fast compare to his clock.

Depending on which has the greater absolute motion .. the greater the
absolute motion, the slower the clock .. just as I said.  You keep saying
'no idiot' and then agreeing with what I'd said anyway.

Hey idiot did you notice that the IRT observer does not claim that an
observed clock can only runs slow???

Exactly what I just pointed out to you .. (yet again, you call me an idiot
and then agree with me)

no you are an idiot period.

.. and that is a DIFFERENT prediction than SRT

IRT gaves the same predictions as SRT in the limited domain of
applicability of SRT.....in addition IRT also includes predictions
outside the limited domain of applicability that includes the effect
of gravitational potentials. That's why IRT is a super set of SRT.

.. so
IRT is NOT a superset of SRT (it doesn't make all the same predictions as
SRT, which a super set theory would do).  You're proven wrong from your own
pathetic words. Gees you are so stupid.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[kenseto]

Post by kenseto

you made the stupid assertion that A and C
move with the same velocity wrt B but in the opposite direction wrt
B.....B will predict that they have different gamma factors.

That is what IRT says ... unless B is at absolute rest (which you claim
is
impossible)

No idiot that's not what IRT says.

Yes .. it does .. you don't know what your own theory says

Post by kenseto
IRT says that the rate of a clock is dependent on its state
of absolute motion. When B and C accelerated  equally
they will have the same state of absolute motion and
therefore they will have the same clock rate.

Only if they are accelerated in the same direction --or-- if they were
absolutely at rest before they started

No idiot two objects accelerated from the same frame in the opposite
direction will remain to have the same state of absolute motion. You
are so stupid.

Ken Seto

eg lets look at B and C together and moving with the same absolution motion
(in the x-direction)
BC
----BC
--------BC
now we make B and C move away from each other uniformly
-----------B--C
--------------B----C
-----------------B------C
You can clearly see that B and C have DIFFERENT absolute motion.  Your
nonsense is refuted again
And note: we were talking about A and C moving away in opposite directions
.. not B and C .. and as B is not at absolute rest according to you, that
means A and C will NOT have the same absolute motion.  So A and C will NOT
have the same clock rates.
That is direct contradiction with SR

Post by kenseto
Direction of relative motion of A
and C wrt B got nothing to do with the rates of clocks A and C.

Of course it does, you moron.  UNLESS B is at absolute rest.  The direction
of ABSOLUTE motion of A and C don't make a difference.  But direction of
relative motion DOES.

Post by kenseto

Since you
are so stupid I decided not to waste time educating you.

In other words .. you ran away because I'd beaten you.  I've refuted all
your lies.  Now you have to lie about what I said and run away again.

Get a life....kid.

I ain't no kid .. I have a life .. and you are a cowardly lying moron

[kenseto]

It doesn't aplly to light neither. Look at the light clock.... SR
claims that the light path in a moving light clock follows a diagonal
path....this is wrong. The light path in a moving light clock is
vertical in all frames.

That is utter nonsense.
A light clock uses a very short pulse.

Yes.

You're right for a change

In theory just a single point of
light .. one photon, but in practice it has a very small finite length
(ie
its a short sequence of successively emitted photons .. or a finite
length
of EM wave etc depending on what you think light is .. it doesn't really
matter for this discussion).

Yes if the target is moving some of these photons will miss the
target....

Nonsense.   How can they possible miss

Hellooo....the target moved during the transit of the first batch of
photons?

Ken Seto

Here's a light clock with source at bottom, and target at top, as viewed
from at rest with the clock
_T_
_S_
The light/photons go from the source S to the target T (and then back again,
which we can ignore for now)
How can a moving observer make any of the light/photons miss?
You really are a moron

and the number of photons missing the target is dependent on
the absolute speed of the light clock.

Refer to the diagram above .. how can the absolute speed at which that clock
moves affect some but not all) of the photons hitting the target?

The pulse itself has the same (vertical) alignment in all frames but the
pulse follows a diagonal path in frames where the clock is moving.

No idiot....all the photons will follow a vertical path on their way
to the upper mirror....

Here is the clock again, as seen when it is moving when a photon is emitted
_T_
_S_
Lets make a photon (p) move vertically, as you claim it does in the frame in
which the clock is moving, and see where it goes.  As it moves up, the
source and target move
    _T_
p
    _S_
By the time it reaches the top, the target has moved away and it misses
p     _T_
        _S_
So your claim is easily shown as nonsense yet again

no photon will follow a diagonal path as you
asserted bogusly.

They ALL do you moron .. or the light will never reach the mirror at the
top.  Your claim is refuted once again

Just like shooting an arrow straight up... in all frames the arrow is
observed as aligned vertically .. but from the frame of (say) a moving
car
observing it, the arrow travels takes a parabolic path.

Hey idiot...an arrow is not a photon.

Hey idiot, I didn't say it was.
Your claims are once again soundly refuted.  You really should think your
nonsense through more carefully before you post it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -