How SR Commits Hara-Kiri (Suicide)

[kenseto]

Can you tell me the differences between an inertial frame and the
preferred frame?

Of course: If we are talking about SR, then there is no such thing as the

preferred frame .. it doesn't exist
Assertion is not a valid arguement.

My statement is is a fact .. not assertion.  You would know that if you
understood SR.  You don't.....that's all.

No such fact is avialable. In fact no object in the universe
(including all Sr observers) is moving inertially.

 SRT calls the preferred frame as
an inertial frame.....that's all.

And that is a lie.  There is no 'the preferred frame' in SR.  So it cannot
be called anything.  Your statement also make no logical sense as an
infinite number of different inertial frames cannot ALL be THE ONE preferred
frame.

Hey idiot there is no infinite number of inertial frame....no object
in the universe is in an inertial frame. Every SR observer assumes
that he is in a preferred frame and that's why every SR observer
claims the exclusive properties of the preferred frame.

.. but there are an infinite number of
inertial frames, all with the same physics.

No idiot....

You're lying again

every SR observer claims the preferred frame to do
physics.

No .. there is NO preferred frame in SR .. so it has no properties

 That's why every SR observer claims the same laws of physics
of the preferred frame.

No .. there is NO preferred frame in SR .. so it has no laws of physics

[kenseto]

They measure the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. But isotropy
does-not mean that the one way speed of light has a constant
value.....you can have isotropy at 100000km/sec or 3000000km/sec.

.>    Actually the measurements verify that the speed of light is a
.>    constant in every measurement. So it follows that one-way, two-way

   and n-way values are all the same. The speed of light is a universal
   and fundamental constant of nature with a constant value.

.

No idiot...the oneway or two way speed of light is distance dependent.

Assertion is not a valid argument.  Especially when it is wrong, and made by
a well known and proven liar like you

Hey idiot....it is not an assertion. The one-way speed of light never
been measured because it is distance dependent. The two way speed of
light uses the new definition for the meter length
(1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second)to eliminate the distance
dependency of the two way speed fo light.

[kenseto]

They measure the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. But isotropy
does-not mean that the one way speed of light has a constant
value.....you can have isotropy at 100000km/sec or 3000000km/sec.

.>    Actually the measurements verify that the speed of light is a
.>    constant in every measurement. So it follows that one-way, two-way

   and n-way values are all the same. The speed of light is a universal
   and fundamental constant of nature with a constant value.

.

No idiot...the oneway or two way speed of light is distance dependent.

Assertion is not a valid argument.  Especially when it is wrong, and made by
a well known and proven liar like you

It's not an assertion. The value for the one-way speed of light never
been measured because it is distance dependent. The value for the two
way speed of light is also distance dependent so they define distance
in terms of light-second. This difinition for the meter eliminate the
distance dependency for the two way speed of light.

[kenseto]

Here's your problem....the earth is not doing the moving.

So you think the earth is not getting any closer to the muon.

Hey idiot I didn't say that.

Yes you did .. you said the earth is not moving ..

Between the earth and the muon, the earth's absolute motion is so low
compare to that of the muon...therefore the earth can be treated as
not moving and that the muon is treated as doing all the
moving....that what my statement means.

In real life both the earth and the nuon are in a state of absolute
motion. The relative motion between them is the vector difference of
their absolute motions.

Ken Seto

in a subsequent post you
even confirmed that this is the case from the muon's perspective.  If the
Earth is not moving from the muons perspective it cannot get closer to the
muon and the two will never meet.  The ONLY way for something to get closer
to you is if it is moving relative to you.
BAHAHAHA .. you're such a moron

[kenseto]

Hey idiot....between the earth and the cosmic muon it the the cosmic
muon that is doing the moving from both perspective.

So according to you, from the perspective of the rest frame of the muon,
the
muon isn't at rest.  BAHAHAHAH .. you're such a moron.

Hey idiot....there is no rest frame fpr any object in  the universe.

Gees you're a moron.

No you are the moron.

Of course there is.  

No there is not.

You can centre a frame of reference on an object, and
in that frame the object is at rest.  

Hey idiot...an object at rest wrt itself is an oxymoron
statement.<shrug>

Ken Seto

It may not be at rest relative to your
imaginary absolute rest frame (whatever that is), but that does not mean it
isn't a rest in some OTHER frame.

IOW  all objects in the universe are in a state of absolute motion.

Even if that were the case (we've already refuted your claims about absolute
motion), there is ALWAYS a frame in which an object is at rest.

[kenseto]

Tell me again .. how can you compare the rates of two clocks moving past
each other with the uniform velocity

Tab=Taa/gamma
OR
Tab=Taa*gamma

That's not how you compare rates.  It doesn't even give you an answer.  I
want you to tell me HOW do you would it .. what PROCESS do you use to
MEASURE the rates of two moving clocks so that you can compare them

Fucking idiot...there is no direct measurement for the rate of a
moving clock in SR or IRT. The SR prediction is confirmed by side by
side direct comparison of the observed clock with the observer's
clock....however the SR prediction is confirmed only if the observed
clock is truly running slower than the observer's clock.
IRT has two predictions for the rate of an observed clock. One of
these prediction is correct when a direct comparison is made.
Ken Seto

BTW there is no measurement in SR....SR predicts.

SR predicts what would be measured.

But you can't measure the rate of a moving clock.

Yes you can.
If you can't then IRT also just predicts .. except it makes multiple guesses
and tells you to pick the right one.

SR predicts.

predicts what would be measured.

The
prediction is confirmed when the clocks are re-united.

But they can't be reunited unless you change their velocities.

What this mean
is that you can go around and say that an SR observer measures the
rate of a moving clock.

Of course you can say that .. IF he follows a procedure which will measure
it.  Until he does, you can PREDICT what he WOULD measure IF he were to
measure it.

A theory is a theory .. no theory has a
measurement .. it is EXPERIMENTS that have measurement, and it is the
THEORY
that predicts what the measurement will be.  My god, Ken, you have
absolutely zero understanding of science.

ROTFLOL....your claim that the rate of a moving clock is measured

Of course it can be

shows me that you don't understanding what the word measured means.

You don't understand anything of physics, moron