On Mar 16, 4:08 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

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.

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?




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