Is SR an Ether Theory?
kenseto
The answer is: YES.
Here's why:
1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for all
experiments and observations.
2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the assumptions
that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a LET
observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the
rods moving wrt him are contracted.
3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and all
the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks moving
wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
4. But SR also said that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
inertial frames. This seems to disagree with the ether concept. NOT so if we
define the speed of light as a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
5. With the above definition for the speed of light the SR postulates can be
defined as follows:
(1). The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to
measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference
frames.
(2). The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). The postulates of IRT
are as follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a measuring rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix (ether).
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are
valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is valid for use to
replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper entitled
"Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Eric Gisse
> Is SR an Ether Theory?
No.
> The answer is: YES.
The answer is: "no, and you are stupid for saying that it is".
> Here's why:
> 1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for all
> experiments and observations.
Doesn't mean SR is an ether theory.
>
> 2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the assumptions
> that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a LET
> observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the
> rods moving wrt him are contracted.
Since you are incapable of expressing an understanding of special
relativity, why would anyone assume you are getting LET right?
Even if you were, SR and LET are different theories.
>
> 3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and all
> the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks moving
> wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
Woah, you finally stopped saying SR assumes anything about absolute
rest. You learned something! It took nearly a decade of people
correcting your stupidity on USENET, but you finally learned
something. Maybe.
However, you are still unable to distinguish between the actual
postulates of relativity and the consequences of the postulates. What
you wrote down are the consequences.
>
> 4. But SR also said that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
> inertial frames. This seems to disagree with the ether concept. NOT so if we
> define the speed of light as a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as
> follows:
> Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
> (duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
That's cute, it really is.
'this seems to disagree with the ether concept, but instead of
abandoning my admittedly idiotic position I will assume something even
more idiotic to save the idiotic idea!'
>
> 5. With the above definition for the speed of light the SR postulates can be
> defined as follows:
> (1). The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to
> measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference
> frames.
How utterly convoluted, and pointless. You replaced the principle of
relativity with a pile of poo.
That reminds me, do you know what an inertial frame is yet?
> (2). The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
> light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
> directions and all inertial frames.
What is with your irrational obsession with length?
>
> The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
> of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). The postulates of IRT
> are as follows:
> 1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
> length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
> 2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
> light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
> directions and all inertial frames.
> 3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
> length of a measuring rod is different in different frames of reference.
> 4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
> second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
> mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
> of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
> measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix (ether).
>
> IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are
> valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is valid for use to
> replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper entitled
> "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Why is it you have not shown that your theory can accurately predict
the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit, Ken?
Plus I would *love* to see you attempt to show how your theory of
gravity [which oddly enough looks Newtonian] 'reduces' to general
relativity. Do you even know anything about general relativity?
Paul Cardinale
1. His so-called 'theory' [sic] doesn't make any predictions.
2. The kenseto doesn't know, and can't learn what a prediction is.
3. The kenseto doesn't know, and can't learn what a theory is.
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message news:45f9c5ef$0$5751$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Is SR an Ether Theory?
> The answer is: YES.
> Here's why:
Is Ken Seto a Persistent Imbecile?
The answer is: YES.
Here's why:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html
and there's a bit more...
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
>
> IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are
> valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is valid for use to
> replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper entitled
> "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>
It cannot be demonstrated that IRT makes any predictions. For example,
IRT can't be used to calculation of perihelion precession of Mercury.
And IRT can't be used to calculate the relativistic effects on satellite
clocks.
Hell, IRT can't even predict the correct time dilation for a clock with
relative velocity of 20,000 km/s with respect to an the observer.
Sam Wormley
> IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are
> valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is valid for use to
> replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper entitled
> "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>
It cannot be demonstrated that IRT makes any predictions. For example,
kenseto
>
> IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are
> valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is valid for use to
> replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper
entitled
> "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ooops.....IRT is not yet in the above website. It is in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Eric Gisse
> "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
Still no derivation of Mercury's precession, and not one of your
equations was actually derived.
kenseto
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:nnlKh.18263$y92.8916@attbi_s22...
> kenseto wrote:
> >
> > IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are
> > valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is valid for use
to
> > replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper
entitled
> > "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
> > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
> >
>
> It cannot be demonstrated that IRT makes any predictions. For example,
> IRT can't be used to calculation of perihelion precession of Mercury.
> And IRT can't be used to calculate the relativistic effects on
satellite
> clocks.
Hey idiot runt....most of the equations of IRT are converted SR equations.
So if SR equations can make predictions why can't IRT also make predictions?
The perihelion precession of Mercury can be calculated using the IRT
corrdinate transform equations,
>
> Hell, IRT can't even predict the correct time dilation for a clock with
> relative velocity of 20,000 km/s with respect to an the observer.
Fucking idiot runt. In IRT time dilation is as follows:
t' = t(Fab/Faa)
Fab/Faa=1/gamma
Therefore time dilation in IRT is:
t' = t/gamma.
So wormy go fuck yourself. You are a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174049677....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
the equations of IRT are converted SR equations and the conversion factor
are as follows:
c = lambda*Faa
v = lambda(Faa-Fab)
gamma = Fab/Faa
1/gamma = Faa/Fab
Faa=the measured frequency of a specific standard light source in A's frame
as measured by observer A.
Fab=the measured frequency of the same specific standard light source in B's
frame as measured by observer A.
Lambda for a specific standard light source is a universal constant. For
example: sodium has a universal wavelength (lambda) of 589 nm.
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> Hey idiot runt....most of the equations of IRT are converted SR equations.
> So if SR equations can make predictions why can't IRT also make predictions?
> The perihelion precession of Mercury can be calculated using the IRT
> corrdinate transform equations,
>> Hell, IRT can't even predict the correct time dilation for a clock with
>> relative velocity of 20,000 km/s with respect to an the observer.
>
> Fucking idiot runt. In IRT time dilation is as follows:
> t' = t(Fab/Faa)
> Fab/Faa=1/gamma
> Therefore time dilation in IRT is:
> t' = t/gamma.
>
> So wormy go fuck yourself. You are a runt of the SRians.
> Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
> A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
> know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
> beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
> the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
> gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
> disagrees with SR
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
Nevertheless, IRT cannot even predict the correct time dilation
kenseto
> On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > Is SR an Ether Theory?
>
> No.
>
> > The answer is: YES.
>
> The answer is: "no, and you are stupid for saying that it is".
>
> > Here's why:
> > 1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for all
> > experiments and observations.
>
> Doesn't mean SR is an ether theory.
Yes it does.
>
> >
> > 2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the
assumptions
> > that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a
LET
> > observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
the
> > rods moving wrt him are contracted.
>
> Since you are incapable of expressing an understanding of special
> relativity, why would anyone assume you are getting LET right?
>
> Even if you were, SR and LET are different theories.
NO....they are not different theories.
>
> >
> > 3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and
all
> > the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks
moving
> > wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
>
> Woah, you finally stopped saying SR assumes anything about absolute
> rest. You learned something! It took nearly a decade of people
> correcting your stupidity on USENET, but you finally learned
> something. Maybe.
Hey idiot:
LET says the observer is in a state of absolute rest = SR says that the
observer is in a state of rest.
That's why both LET and SR assert that all the clocks moving wrt them are
running slow and all the rods moving wrt them are contracted.
You are a runt of the SRians:
harry
"kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45f9c5ef$0$5751$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Is SR an Ether Theory?
> The answer is: YES.
> Here's why:
> 1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for all
> experiments and observations.
>
> 2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the assumptions
> that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest
Huh? What "LET" are you referring to? I think you confuse Stokes with
Lorentz...
> and that's why a LET
> observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
> the
> rods moving wrt him are contracted.
>
> 3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and all
> the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks moving
> wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
He/she may assume so but no need to do so (in fact space shuttle astronauts
won't do so)
> 4. But SR also said that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
> inertial frames. This seems to disagree with the ether concept.
Appearances can be misleading. :-))
- Ether theories: metaphysics
- SRT: operationally defined physics.
[shrug]
Harald
kenseto
Art Deco
>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>news:nnlKh.18263$y92.8916@attbi_s22...
>> kenseto wrote:
>> >
>> > IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
>are
>> > valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is valid for use
>to
>> > replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper
>entitled
>> > "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
>> > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>> >
>>
>> It cannot be demonstrated that IRT makes any predictions. For example,
>> IRT can't be used to calculation of perihelion precession of Mercury.
>> And IRT can't be used to calculate the relativistic effects on
>satellite
>> clocks.
>
>idiot runt
>Fucking idiot runt
>wormy go fuck yourself
>runt of the SRians.
>runt of the SR SRians
>moron
>idiot
>mental midget
>imbecile
>eats up their shit
>Asshole
>
>Ken Seto
Another finely honed technical argument from kenseto.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
PD
> Is SR an Ether Theory?
> The answer is: YES.
> Here's why:
> 1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for all
> experiments and observations.
Two errors:
1. False logic: "If the math is the same, and the predictions are the
same, then the mechanisms must be the same." Nope.
2. SR and LET share a common *subset* of math, but the math of SR is
*much* more extensive than LET. This is part of what distinguishes SR
from LET. The fact that you are unfamiliar with that part of the
mathematical structure of SR and are familiar only with the tiny
subset that they have in common is your problem.
>
> 2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the assumptions
> that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a LET
> observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the
> rods moving wrt him are contracted.
>
> 3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and all
> the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks moving
> wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
Error 3: SR simply does not make this assumption. The fact that you
cannot understand how it could be otherwise is your problem.
>
> 4. But SR also said that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
> inertial frames. This seems to disagree with the ether concept. NOT so if we
> define the speed of light as a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as
> follows:
But SR made no such definition, and prior to 1983 this wasn't even the
definition used when the speed of light was *measured* in a test of
SR.
> Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
> (duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
> 5. With the above definition for the speed of light the SR postulates can be
> defined as follows:
> (1). The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to
> measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference
> frames.
> (2). The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
> light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
> directions and all inertial frames.
One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
above, you are no longer talking about SR.
PD
Sam Wormley
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Nevertheless, IRT cannot even predict the correct time dilation
>> for a clock with relative velocity of 20,000 km/s with respect
>> to an the observer.
>>
> Nevertheless wormy is a runt of the SRians.
>
>
Seto--It must be embarrassing that IRT can't accurately predict the
perihelion precession of Mercury or the relativistic effects on satellite
clocks or even the time dilation for a clock with relative velocity of
20,000 km/s for an observer. It doesn't matter what you call me! IRT
can't predict anything! Sad!
Autymn D. C.
wrote:
> - Ether theories: metaphysics
> - SRT: operationally defined physics.
Nope, the scientists annamed the aithèr the field.
harry
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174054649.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
> you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
> above, you are no longer talking about SR.
In practice, that's not correct. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's theory, and
even SRT have all been redefined over time. What matters for a theory of
physics is the predictions - which are determined by the operational
definitions of its equations.
Sam Wormley
For example?
kenseto
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1174052...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
You are an idiot....[shrug]
kenseto
>
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174054649.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
> > you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
> > above, you are no longer talking about SR.
So the length of a meter is not redefined to be 1/299,792,458
light-second?????????? If it is then doesn't that mean that the second SR
postulate is also redefined????
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> So the length of a meter is not redefined to be 1/299,792,458
> light-second?????????? If it is then doesn't that mean that the second SR
> postulate is also redefined????
>
> Ken Seto
SR doesn't and never has had anything to do with unit definitions,
Seto!
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually
understood at the present time--when applied to moving
bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be
inherent in the phenomena.
Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action
of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon
here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one
or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the
magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric
field with a certain definite energy, producing a current
at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.
But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in
motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming
equality of relative motion in the two cases
discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the
former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to (1)
the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold
good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which
will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'')
to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only (2)
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body.
These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a
simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary
bodies.
The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove
to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an "absolutely stationary
space" provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.
____________________________
And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas
and make his case...
PD
> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:1174059...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
>
>
> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1174054649.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
> > > you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
> > > above, you are no longer talking about SR.
>
> So the length of a meter is not redefined to be 1/299,792,458
> light-second??????????
Not as an assumption of SR, no.
SR was built completely without that assumption. And it was thoroughly
tested without that assumption.
Once those tests ended up being in complete agreement with SR, THEN
the meter was redefined to be 1/299792458 s.
> If it is then doesn't that mean that the second SR
> postulate is also redefined????
Following 1983, *after* substantial testing of SR, then the meter was
redefined, and then the second postulate is true by definition. Just
keep in mind that SR was *thoroughly* tested BEFORE the redefinition.
If there should *ever* be evidence that SR is not valid because of a
mismatch of any prediction *other than* the invariance of the speed of
light (and there are plenty of those), then the redefinition of the
meter will be retracted. So far, there is no such evidence.
PD
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > In practice, that's not correct. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's theory,
> and
> > even SRT have all been redefined over time. What matters for a theory of
> > physics is the predictions - which are determined by the operational
> > definitions of its equations.-
kenseto
Faa=5.093*10^14 Hertz
Fab=5.059*10^14 Hertz
Can you use SR to calculate the time dilation of that clock ?
The answer is NO.
Sam Wormley
You throw out some frequencies, but show no calculations. You are all
bullshit, Seto. What answer do you get at orbital semi major axis of 10
earth radii? You can't because you don't know how!
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Why is it you haven't actually derived any of your equations, Ken?
SR's equations are derived from the starting postulates - your
postulates do not appear to ever be used, you just take what SR
already did and tack some crap onto it.
Why is it you haven't done ANYTHING with gravity, Ken? I am yet to see
your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession, or a proof that
IRT "reduces" to GR at any level.
>
> Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
>
> news:1173997905....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Is SR an Ether Theory?
>
> > No.
>
> > > The answer is: YES.
>
> > The answer is: "no, and you are stupid for saying that it is".
>
> > > Here's why:
> > > 1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for all
> > > experiments and observations.
>
> > Doesn't mean SR is an ether theory.
>
> Yes it does.
Well, isn't that interesting. SR is an ether theory despite never
explicitly or implicitly referring to the ether.
In fact, you seem to believe you understand SR better than other
people despite constantly being corrected about conceptual mistakes
regarding SR.
>
>
>
> > > 2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the
> assumptions
> > > that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a
> LET
> > > observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
> the
> > > rods moving wrt him are contracted.
>
> > Since you are incapable of expressing an understanding of special
> > relativity, why would anyone assume you are getting LET right?
>
> > Even if you were, SR and LET are different theories.
>
> NO....they are not different theories.
What are the postulates of LET?
>
>
>
> > > 3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and
> all
> > > the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks
> moving
> > > wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.
>
> > Woah, you finally stopped saying SR assumes anything about absolute
> > rest. You learned something! It took nearly a decade of people
> > correcting your stupidity on USENET, but you finally learned
> > something. Maybe.
>
> Hey idiot:
> LET says the observer is in a state of absolute rest = SR says that the
> observer is in a state of rest.
Show me one literature reference that says either of these things.
> That's why both LET and SR assert that all the clocks moving wrt them are
> running slow and all the rods moving wrt them are contracted.
Show me one literature reference that says either of these things.
kenseto
Hey fucking idiot runt accoridng to IRT the time dilation factor is as
follows:
t'=t(Fab/Faa)
t'= 0.9933*t
Now can SR do that? Again the answer is no.
kenseto
Fucking idiot runt....the first two IRT postulates are the SR postulates and
therefore I can use the SR equation and convert it into IRT equations.
>
> Why is it you haven't done ANYTHING with gravity, Ken? I am yet to see
> your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession, or a proof that
> IRT "reduces" to GR at any level.
Hey idiot....IRT is a theory of motion. The coordinate transform equations
can be used to determine the coordinates of any object at any time. So if
you determine the coordinates of the sun and Mercury at different time
intervals the precession of Mercury will be revealed. BTW why does IRT have
to reduce to GRT? when it is already a complete theory of motion?
kenseto
> On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1173997905....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Is SR an Ether Theory?
> >
> > > No.
> >
> > > > The answer is: YES.
> >
> > > The answer is: "no, and you are stupid for saying that it is".
> >
> > > > Here's why:
> > > > 1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for
all
> > > > experiments and observations.
> >
> > > Doesn't mean SR is an ether theory.
> >
> > Yes it does.
>
> Well, isn't that interesting. SR is an ether theory despite never
> explicitly or implicitly referring to the ether.
LET also never implicitly referring to the ether. But both the SR observer
and the LET observer assume that they are in a state of rest. That's why
both observer sees all the clocks moving wrt them are running slow and all
the rods moving wrt them are contracted.
In real life this assumption of SR and LET is faulty. In real life no
observer is in a state of rest. This means that no observer is preferred and
therefore no observer can see ALL the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow. In real life he will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the clcoks moving wrt him are running fast.
>
> In fact, you seem to believe you understand SR better than other
> people despite constantly being corrected about conceptual mistakes
> regarding SR.
No scuh conceptual mistake on my part. It is you who don't understand SR.
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174087625.4...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1173997905....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > Is SR an Ether Theory?
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > > > The answer is: YES.
>
> > > > The answer is: "no, and you are stupid for saying that it is".
>
> > > > > Here's why:
> > > > > 1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for
> all
> > > > > experiments and observations.
>
> > > > Doesn't mean SR is an ether theory.
>
> > > Yes it does.
>
> > Well, isn't that interesting. SR is an ether theory despite never
> > explicitly or implicitly referring to the ether.
>
> LET also never implicitly referring to the ether. But both the SR observer
> and the LET observer assume that they are in a state of rest. That's why
> both observer sees all the clocks moving wrt them are running slow and all
> the rods moving wrt them are contracted.
Ken, did you see where I said "explicitly" ? LET *EXPLICITLY* assumes
an ether. SR assumes no such thing.
Furthermore, your assertion that an observer in SR assumes he is at
rest is wrong. Moving observers are trivial applications of the
theory.
> In real life this assumption of SR and LET is faulty. In real life no
> observer is in a state of rest. This means that no observer is preferred and
> therefore no observer can see ALL the clocks moving wrt him are running
> slow. In real life he will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
> slow and some of the clcoks moving wrt him are running fast.
So Ken, where did you learn SR? Can you point me to the book/resource
that says what you are saying about SR?
Eric Gisse
Really?
The first 4 postulates of Hyperbolic and Elliptic geometry are the
same as the first 4 postulates of Euclidean geometry. Does that mean I
can tack on arbitrary shit to an equation from Euclidean geometry and
get a valid equation in Hyperbolic or Elliptic geometry?
You have not demonstrated that your equations are derivable from your
postulates. You have not shown the validity of your equations. You
have not shown anything, really.
>
>
>
> > Why is it you haven't done ANYTHING with gravity, Ken? I am yet to see
> > your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession, or a proof that
> > IRT "reduces" to GR at any level.
>
> Hey idiot....IRT is a theory of motion. The coordinate transform equations
> can be used to determine the coordinates of any object at any time. So if
> you determine the coordinates of the sun and Mercury at different time
> intervals the precession of Mercury will be revealed. BTW why does IRT have
> to reduce to GRT? when it is already a complete theory of motion?
So show your derivation of the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It
is a standard fixture in every relativity textbook I have ever seen,
so it should be easy for you. How about deriving Newtonian gravity?
Can you do that? How come you don't incorporate the equivalence
principle into your theory?
Sam Wormley
SR is the wrong tool and t'= 0.9933*t is the wrong answer, Seto!
Eric Gisse
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:uGDKh.20427$y92.6334@attbi_s22...
>
>
>
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > >news:0GxKh.20466$PF.19281@attbi_s21...
> > >> kenseto wrote:
> > >>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > >>>> Nevertheless, IRT cannot even predict the correct time dilation
> > >>>> for a clock with relative velocity of 20,000 km/s with respect
> > >>>> to an the observer.
>
> > >>> Nevertheless wormy is a runt of the SRians.
>
> > >> Seto--It must be embarrassing that IRT can't accurately predict the
> > >> perihelion precession of Mercury or the relativistic effects on
> > > satellite
> > >> clocks or even the time dilation for a clock with relative velocity
> of
> > >> 20,000 km/s for an observer. It doesn't matter what you call me! IRT
> > >> can't predict anything! Sad!
>
> > > Hey idiot If I give you the following data on a relatively moving clock:
> > > Faa=5.093*10^14 Hertz
> > > Fab=5.059*10^14 Hertz
> > > Can you use SR to calculate the time dilation of that clock ?
> > > The answer is NO.
>
> > You throw out some frequencies, but show no calculations. You are all
> > bullshit, Seto. What answer do you get at orbital semi major axis of 10
> > earth radii? You can't because you don't know how!
>
> Hey fucking idiot runt accoridng to IRT the time dilation factor is as
> follows:
> t'=t(Fab/Faa)
> t'= 0.9933*t
> Now can SR do that? Again the answer is no.
So how did you get .9933, Ken? Did you pull it out of your ass like
everything else?
Autymn D. C.
> If there should *ever* be evidence that SR is not valid because of a
> mismatch of any prediction *other than* the invariance of the speed of
> light (and there are plenty of those), then the redefinition of the
> meter will be retracted. So far, there is no such evidence.
But there are no perfect vacua, so there are no constants.
kenseto
Fucking idiot runt....sice the first two postulates of IRT is exactly the
same as the SR postulates why can't I use the Einstein's derivation to get
the IRT equations in terms of v and c?......Then converted those IRT
equations into the current form in terms of Faa and Fab.
Ken Seto
kenseto
Hey idiot runt why t' = 0.9933*t is the wrong answer???
kenseto
0.9933 = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz
You are so fucking stupid. I suggest that you don't read any more of my
post.
kenseto
If SR didn't assume an ether then why an SR observer claims that his clock
is in a preferred status.....why is his clock is the fastest running clock
in the universe????????
>
> Furthermore, your assertion that an observer in SR assumes he is at
> rest is wrong. Moving observers are trivial applications of the
> theory.
Fucking idiot..... every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest.
Sam Wormley
> ..... every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest.
>
In a state of rest with respect to what?
Seto, the clock in the observer's inertial frame has no relative motion
with respect to the observer. It could be said that the observer's clock
is at rest WRT the observer.
States of rest are *strictly* observer dependent!
Sam Wormley
Because it is wrong for relativistic effects on satellite clocks in orbit
with semi major axis of 10 earth radii! Show us the calculation whereby
you came up with t'= 0.9933*t.
IRT can't accurately predict the perihelion precession of Mercury or the
relativistic effects on satellite clocks in arbitrary orbits or even the
time dilation for a clock with relative velocity of 20,000 km/s for an
observer.
And you, Seto, are demonstrating that IRT is worthless right here in this
thread.
Sam Wormley
> Fucking idiot runt:
> 0.9933 = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz
> You are so fucking stupid. I suggest that you don't read any more of my
> post.
>
>
The question, Seto, is where did you get 5.059*10^14 Hertz and
5.095*10^14 Hertz.
kenseto
Sigh....every SR observer claims that he is at rest wrt all the objects
moving wrt him.
kenseto
You are a fucking idiot runt.
0.9933 = Fab/Faa = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz.
Faa = the frequency of a standard light source in observer A's frame as
measured by A.
Fab= the frequency of an identical standard light source in B's frame as
measured by A. If Fab is not constant or B is moving in a curved path wrt A,
the mean value of Fab over time is used.
>
> IRT can't accurately predict the perihelion precession of Mercury or
the
> relativistic effects on satellite clocks in arbitrary orbits or even
the
> time dilation for a clock with relative velocity of 20,000 km/s for an
> observer.
You are a fucking idiot and a huge waste of time.
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
> Sigh....every SR observer claims that he is at rest wrt all the objects
> moving wrt him.
>
>
I don't know where you get that idea. The concept of "rest" is
superfluous. Other objects have relative velocity to the observer.
In the observer's own frame the dr/dt = 0.
In relativity (and even Galilean relativity) there is no state of
absolute rest or motion. It's all relative.
kenseto
Fucking idiot runt....they are measured frequency (by observer A) of a
standard light source in A's frame and an identical standard light source
B's frame.
kenseto
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1174106367....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 16, 11:43 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If there should *ever* be evidence that SR is not valid because of a
> > mismatch of any prediction *other than* the invariance of the speed of
> > light (and there are plenty of those), then the redefinition of the
> > meter will be retracted. So far, there is no such evidence.
But SR is based on the invariant one-way speed of light and no direct
one-way speed of light ever been performed. What this mean is that any test
that could potentially refute the claim of SR you SRians will refuse to do
it. You even redefine the meter to fit your theory.
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> You are a fucking idiot runt. 0.9933 = Fab/Faa = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz.
> Faa = the frequency of a standard light source in observer A's frame as measured by A.
> Fab= the frequency of an identical standard light source in B's frame as
> measured by A. If Fab is not constant or B is moving in a curved path wrt A,
> the mean value of Fab over time is used.
> You are a fucking idiot and a huge waste of time.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
Seto where did you get 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz and how does
that relate to the earth's gravitation and the size of the satellite
orbit?
Sam Wormley
The problem is about satellite clocks in ten earth radii orbits, not
light sources that have already been measured. IRT is obviously
worthless and can't even predict the relativistic effects on satellite
clocks in ten earth radii orbits! So who is really the idiot?
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
>
> > Sigh....every SR observer claims that he is at rest wrt all the objects
> > moving wrt him.
> >
> >
>
> I don't know where you get that idea. The concept of "rest" is
> superfluous. Other objects have relative velocity to the observer.
> In the observer's own frame the dr/dt = 0.
The concept of rest is not superfluous in SR. Einstein said at the rest
frame of the observer or clock the clock runs at its normal rate. All the
other clock moving wrt the observer's clock are running slow. dr/dt = 0 is
self referencing. It is a stupid statement.
>
> In relativity (and even Galilean relativity) there is no state of
> absolute rest or motion. It's all relative.
Hey Idiot then why does an SR observer claims that in his rest frame his
clock is running at normal rate?
kenseto
Faa=5.095*10^14 Hertz= the frequency of sodium source in A's frame as
measured by A.
Fab=50059*10^14 Hertz = the MEAN frequency of sodium source in B's frame as
measured by A.
The earth gravitation and the size of the orbit of the satellite is
irrelevant.
If you choose a different standard light source (other than sodium) then you
will have different Faa and Fab values.
kenseto
Hey fucking idiot do you think you can predict anything with SR without
measured relative velocity data??
With SR/GR you specified a velocity of 20000 km/sec and that along with the
previously measured gravitational potential at the final location of the
satellite and the mass of the earth you determine the time dilation factor.
With IRT I can specify a value for Fab for a standard light source in the
satellite and determine the time dilation factor using the IRT equation of
Fab/Faa to determine the time dilation factor.
Sam Wormley
> Hey Idiot then why does an SR observer claims that in his rest frame his
> clock is running at normal rate?
>
>
A clock in the observers rest frame has relative velocity of zero with
respect to the observer, dr/dt = 0, so the relativistic gamma reduces
to unity.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html
gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
When v = 0, then gamma = 1
dTau = dT
No time dilation
Sam Wormley
Seto says "the size of the orbit of the satellite is irrelevant"!
Seto, does IRT alway need to measure the frequency of a light source to
make a prediction?
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might
start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms.
-- Stephen Jay Gould
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:lyZKh.22374$PF.13718@attbi_s21...
Sam Wormley
The 20000 km/sec was a separate problem/test, not the satellite's orbital
velocity.
Shall we start over?
IRT cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
IRT cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock
IRT cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Seto cannot demonstrate that IRT can do any of these things!
Eric Gisse
You don't seem to understand the "relativity" part of special
relativity, Ken. Just because an observer can look at himself and say
"I'm not moving!" that does not mean there is an ether.
Do you know your same "argument" applies to every kinematic theory
under the sun? By your "argument" GR requires an ether, as does
classical mechanics, as does your theory.
>
>
>
> > Furthermore, your assertion that an observer in SR assumes he is at
> > rest is wrong. Moving observers are trivial applications of the
> > theory.
>
> Fucking idiot..... every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest.
With respect to himself only, everything else is up for grabs.
At least you dropped the "absolute state of rest" crap.
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh, so you expect me to immediately know the significance of yet more
numbers you pulled out of your ass without any explanation whatsoever?
Eric Gisse
You can't use Einstein's derivation because the theories are D I F F E
R E N T. Do you understand the concept of 'different', Ken? You have
no justification whatsoever for all your Faa crap.
Yes, since the SR postulates [albiet bastardized] are in there I
expect to see SR, but that doesn't mean you can tack on whatever you
want to an SR equation and get an "IRT" equation.
BTW, you forgot to mark or reply to the comment that you snipped so
I'll put it back:
So show your derivation of the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It
is a standard fixture in every relativity textbook I have ever seen,
so it should be easy for you. How about deriving Newtonian gravity?
Can you do that? How come you don't incorporate the equivalence
principle into your theory?
>
> Ken Seto
PD
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:1174106367....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
That is incorrect. The one-way test of light *has* been performed,
just not in the manner you think it should be. It was precisely
because of these tests that the meter was redefined LATER.
PD
Sam Wormley
>
> But SR is based on the invariant one-way speed of light and no direct
> one-way speed of light ever been performed. What this mean is that any test
> that could potentially refute the claim of SR you SRians will refuse to do
> it. You even redefine the meter to fit your theory.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s.
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]
Eric Gisse
Statements like Ken's really really entertain me when I realize that
he has been arguing about SR for over a decade now, and still doesn't
know this shit.
If anything, folks like Ken are a cosmic beacon saying "You could
always do worse."
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >
> > But SR is based on the invariant one-way speed of light and no direct
> > one-way speed of light ever been performed. What this mean is that any
test
> > that could potentially refute the claim of SR you SRians will refuse to
do
> > it. You even redefine the meter to fit your theory.
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> >
>
>
> Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments
>
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Hey idiot these are one-way isotopy experiments. You can have one-way and
two-way isotropy but with different actual measured values.
The only way to confirm the invariant of one-way light speed is to do a
direct one-way measurement with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks in the same inertial frame. The fact that you SRians refuse to do
such an experiment speaks volume.
Ken Seto
The_Man
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QH_Kh.22052$y92.13494@attbi_s22...
>
>
>
> > kenseto wrote:
>
> > > But SR is based on the invariant one-way speed of light and no direct
> > > one-way speed of light ever been performed. What this mean is that any
> test
> > > that could potentially refute the claim of SR you SRians will refuse to
> do
> > > it. You even redefine the meter to fit your theory.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> Hey idiot these are one-way isotopy experiments. You can have one-way and
> two-way isotropy but with different actual measured values.
> The only way to confirm the invariant of one-way light speed is to do a
> direct one-way measurement with two spatially separated and synchronized
> clocks in the same inertial frame. The fact that you SRians refuse to do
> such an experiment speaks volume.
Sam just posted a selection of such measurements. Certainly, this is
only a small portion of all the tests done. This hardly amounts to
"refusal" to do this experiment.
Then again, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Remind
us again, why YOU don't just determine this value experimentally, the
way YOU think it should be properly done You're a bright guy. If it
should have been easy for all the blockheads and Einstein worshippers
to do it, then it should be a piece o' cake for you, right? How hard
can it be? It's so easy, A CAVEMAN COULD DO IT (with apologies to
Geico). Then you can publish the results, and use them as vindication
of your IRT.
> > upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric Gisse
Ken has attempted this in the past.
He has whined, many times, that nobody will accept his grant requests.
It has been explained to him also, many times, that his grant requests
are poorly written and hasn't offered a valid reason as to why he
should be given money to do again what has already been done many
times.
USENET is the only place that even pretends to listen to Ken anymore,
and Ken knows it.
[...]
kenseto
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174171761.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
No idiot they are not different theories. SR is a subset of IRT. SR is not
complete. IRT is complete.
>
> Yes, since the SR postulates [albiet bastardized] are in there I
> expect to see SR, but that doesn't mean you can tack on whatever you
> want to an SR equation and get an "IRT" equation.
Sure SR is a subset of IRT...the IRT equations based v and c are exactly the
same as those for SR. The extended IRT equations based on Faa and Fab
includes the possibility that the observed clock can run at a faster rate
than the observer's clock. That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate transform
equations.
Ken Seto
kenseto
So what is wrong with the IRT solution to determine the time dilation factor
for a clock that moves at 20000 km/sec wrt the observer? Why did you say
that IRT can't determine the time dilation factor for such a clock???
>
> Shall we start over?
>
> IRT cannot:
> A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
Yes it can. Use the IRT transform equations to determine the coordinates for
Mercury and the Sun at different time intervals. Plot these coordinates and
the precession of Mercury will be revealed.
>
> IRT cannot
> B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock
Yes it can. From the Pound and Rebka experiment you establish the ratio of
Faa/Fab vs height. Using the IRT equations you establish the effect of
velocity on the ratio Fab/Faa. The relativistic effect on a satellite clock
is = (Faa/Fab) - (Fab/Faa).
>
> IRT cannot
> C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
> relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Sure it can the time dilation factors are as follows:
Fba/Fbb
OR
Fbb/Fba
What this mean is that instead of measuring the relative velocity of A wrt B
to determine the time dilation factor you measure Fba.
>
> Seto cannot demonstrate that IRT can do any of these things!
Wormy you are an idiot runt..
kenseto
Fucking idiot....read the definitions for Faa and Fab.
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > news:DzTKh.21973$PF.10227@attbi_s21...
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> You are a fucking idiot runt. 0.9933 = Fab/Faa = 5.059*10^14
> > Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz.
> >>> Faa = the frequency of a standard light source in observer A's frame
as
> > measured by A.
> >>> Fab= the frequency of an identical standard light source in B's frame
> > as
> >>> measured by A. If Fab is not constant or B is moving in a curved path
> > wrt A,
> >>> the mean value of Fab over time is used.
> >>> You are a fucking idiot and a huge waste of time.
> >>>
> >>> Ken Seto
> >>>
> >>>
does
> >> that relate to the earth's gravitation and the size of the satellite
> >> orbit?
> >>
> > Hey idiot
> > Faa=5.095*10^14 Hertz= the frequency of sodium source in A's frame as
> > measured by A.
> > Fab=50059*10^14 Hertz = the MEAN frequency of sodium source in B's frame
as
> > measured by A.
> > The earth gravitation and the size of the orbit of the satellite is
> > irrelevant.
> > If you choose a different standard light source (other than sodium) then
you
> > will have different Faa and Fab values.
> >
> >
>
> Seto says "the size of the orbit of the satellite is irrelevant"!
It is irrelevant if you measure Fab for the satellite clock directly. You
can determine the time dilation factor from that measurement alone.
>
> Seto, does IRT always need to measure the frequency of a light source
to
> make a prediction?
Wormy does SR always need to measure the velocity of a light source to make
a prediction?
Ken Seto
karand...@yahoo.com
> That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
> dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate transform
> equations.
>
Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated (repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:
T*T^-1=I.
So, you have rendered IRT invalid on every occasion you attempted to
demonstrate the above.
kenseto
The point is: the observer is at rest wrt what? The claim of the observer is
at rest means that all the clocks moving wrt him are doing the moving and
that's why all the clocks moving wrt the observer are running slow. This
definitely suggest that the observer is declaring that he is in a preferred
frame.
kenseto
> On Mar 17, 5:23 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174093523.6...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 16, 4:08 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:1174087625.4...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > > On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > >news:1173997905....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Is SR an Ether Theory?
> >
> >
> > > an ether. SR assumes no such thing.
> >
> > If SR didn't assume an ether then why an SR observer claims that his
clock
> > is in a preferred status.....why is his clock is the fastest running
clock
> > in the universe????????
>
> You don't seem to understand the "relativity" part of special
> relativity, Ken. Just because an observer can look at himself and say
> "I'm not moving!" that does not mean there is an ether.
NO when he says that he is not moving and he assigns the observed relative
motion to the observed clock then he is assuming that he is declaring that
his frame is preferred. The correct assumption is that the observer declares
that he is also moving and thus his clock rate can be faster or slower than
the observed clock.
>
> Do you know your same "argument" applies to every kinematic theory
> under the sun? By your "argument" GR requires an ether, as does
> classical mechanics, as does your theory.
So what?
Ken Seto
kenseto
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174230313....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
> > dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate
transform
> > equations.
> >
> > Ken Seto-
>
> Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated (repeatedly)
> that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
> requirement that:
>
> T*T^-1=I.
I don't understand this equation. Why is this a requirement?
>
>
> So, you have rendered IRT invalid on every occasion you attempted to
> demonstrate the above.
False assertion.
kenseto
"kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45fd4e12$0$17183$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Sorry it should be clarified as follows:
the ratio of (Faa_h/Fab_h) vs height
The ratio of (Fab_v/Faa_v) vs velocity.
The effect on a satellite clock = (Faa_h/Fab_h) - (Fab_v/Faa_v)
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
The observer is simply in the same frame as his own clock... they both
are likely in motion with respect to other galaxies, stars, trains,
joggers, etc.
Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
IRT cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Seto cannot demonstrate that IRT can do any of these things!
Sam Wormley
>
> Sure SR is a subset of IRT...the IRT equations based v and c are exactly the
> same as those for SR. The extended IRT equations based on Faa and Fab
> includes the possibility that the observed clock can run at a faster rate
> than the observer's clock. That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
> dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate transform
> equations.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
IRT cannot
The_Man
> <karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174230313....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
> > > dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate
> transform
> > > equations.
>
> > > Ken Seto-
>
> > Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated (repeatedly)
> > that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
> > requirement that:
>
> > T*T^-1=I.
>
> I don't understand this equation.
Why isn't this a surprise?
> Why is this a requirement?
For starters, the Lorentz transformations form a group (as proven by
Einstein and Poincare). There are 4 basic requirements of a group (by
definition). One of these requirements is the presence of an inverse
(T^-1) for every element in the group (T), and the inverse has to be
an element of the group.
To be correct, IRT MUST have the group property. But you haven't
proven this yet. In fact, it is the easiest way to show that IRT is
shit ("more politely expressed as "invalid")
kenseto
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
kenseto
joggers, etc why then is his clock is the fastest running clock in the
universe.
kenseto
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
kenseto
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
kenseto
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
kenseto
"The_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174252169....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 4:03 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174248054....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
frame
> > also has two sets of transforms. One set represents the correct outward
> > transform from the observer's frame. The other set represents the
correct
> > inverse transform from the primed frame. So I guess it is you who don't
know
> > shit.:-)-
>
> Then where is the inverse for the so-called "outward" transform?
Do you have reading comprehension problem? One set is the correct transform
from the unprimed frame to the primed frame. The other set is the correct
transform from the primed frame to the unprimed frame. The current inverse
transform is wrong. Why? Because it assumes that the unprimed clock is
always running faster than the primed clock.
>
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >
> > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
> > Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
> > A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
> > know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
> > beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
> > the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
> > gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
> > disagrees with SR
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> >
>
>
>
Nevertheless wormy is a runt of the SRians.
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >
> > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
> > Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
> > A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
> > know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
> > beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
> > the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
> > gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
> > disagrees with SR
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> >
>
>
Nevertheless Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
kenseto
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174253053.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 10:42 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > <karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174230313....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
> > > > dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate
> > transform
> > > > equations.
> >
> > > > Ken Seto-
> >
> > > Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated (repeatedly)
> > > that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
> > > requirement that:
> >
> > > T*T^-1=I.
> >
> > I don't understand this equation. Why is this a requirement?
> >
> >
>
But your explanation is based on the assumption that the observer's clock is
always running at a faster rate than the observed clock and the current
inverse transform is not always correct based on that assumption. In IRT
each observer has two sets of transforms. One set is the correct outward
transform from A (the observer) to B and the other set is the correct
inverse transform from B to A.
Ken Seto
Art Deco
Unable to argue his kooky ideas, kenseto has to fall back on spamming
ad hominems.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174171355.4...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 5:23 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1174093523.6...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 4:08 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:1174087625.4...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:1173997905....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Is SR an Ether Theory?
>
> > > > Ken, did you see where I said "explicitly" ? LET *EXPLICITLY* assumes
> > > > an ether. SR assumes no such thing.
>
> > > If SR didn't assume an ether then why an SR observer claims that his
> clock
> > > is in a preferred status.....why is his clock is the fastest running
> clock
> > > in the universe????????
>
> > You don't seem to understand the "relativity" part of special
> > relativity, Ken. Just because an observer can look at himself and say
> > "I'm not moving!" that does not mean there is an ether.
>
> NO when he says that he is not moving and he assigns the observed relative
> motion to the observed clock then he is assuming that he is declaring that
> his frame is preferred. The correct assumption is that the observer declares
> that he is also moving and thus his clock rate can be faster or slower than
> the observed clock.
Again, you are not understanding the concept of "relativity".
No observer is a preferred observer in SR.
BTW: No clock ever runs faster than a resting clock in SR.
>
>
>
> > Do you know your same "argument" applies to every kinematic theory
> > under the sun? By your "argument" GR requires an ether, as does
> > classical mechanics, as does your theory.
>
> So what?
It means your argument is silly. SR isn't an aether theory. GR isn't
an aether theory. Classical mechanics isn't an aether theory.
>
> Ken Seto