On Mar 15, 3:31 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" 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.



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?


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.