On May 3, 11:00*am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 2, 5:00 pm, PD wrote:
On May 2, 3:06 pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 2, 3:15 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
kenseto wrote:
What's wrong with these pictures???
Your personal misunderstandings.
1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. * [...]
SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
attempting to discuss it.
So ACCORDING TO YOU: the traveling clock has less elapsed time when it
rejoins the stay-at-home clock is not because it was running at slower
rate than the stay-at-home clock....right? Question: what is the cause
that the traveling clock shows less elapsed time?
Ken Seto
Your questions, Ken, would be answered if you would start reading real
books about relativity,

This is a bunch of bull ****. You don't have a good answer to my
question so you sent me off to read a bunch of books??
My question: What is the cause for the traveling clock shows less
elapsed time than the stay-at-home clock? This question arises because
you and Roberts denied that the traveling clock shows less elapsed
time because it is running at a slower rate.

This has been explained to you so many times, Seto, that a rock would
understand by now.

According to the Uncertainty Principle, the initial photons misses the
target in the vertical direction so the light path length of the rod are
shorter, so the traveling twins clock are less.
You are probably joking because the uncertainty principle is not part
of SR, which deals at the macro level where events are kinematics are
deterministic. In other words, h = 0 in SR, as well as G =0.

Also do you now deny that every SR observer claims that all clocks
moving wrt him are running slow?

The rock's way ahead of you on this one too, Seto.

According to the Uncertainty Principle, the initial photons misses the
target in the vertical direction so the light path length of the rod are
shorter, so all the clocks is less.

You are probably joking. If you are not, you are an idiot. The
undertainty principle does not state that any quantity misses any
targets. It just states that both position and momentum cannot be
measured at arbitrary accuracy due to the fact that observation
affects the measurement at the microcosmic level of particle motion.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with theories at the macrocosmic level, as
nothing like that has been oibserved or measured at that level to at
least 1 part in many trillions.

But you are maybe joking, I hope you are not an idiot.

Mike









Ken Seto

rather than your strategy so far which has
been a) read something lightweight and extrapolate (incorrectly), b)
spend years on your own "theory" that makes more sense to you, c)
pushing your "theory" on the web, and d) using the critiques of your
"theory" as an opportunity to ask questions about relativity.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -