Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)

A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

The abstract for this paper is as follows:
A new physical model of our universe called Model Mechanics has been
formulated. Model Mechanics posits that a structured and elastic
medium called the E-Matrix occupies all of pure space. The S-Particles
are the only mass bearing fundamental particles that exist in our
universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the E-
Matrix give rise to all the different basic particles such as the
electron and quarks. Also the different absolute motions of the S-
Particles or S-Particle systems give rise to all the processes and
interactions in our universe. Specifically Model Mechanics gives rise
to a new theory of gravity called DTG and a new theory of relativity
called IRT. DTG in combination with IRT provides physical solutions
to the following problematic observations of the current theories:
1.The accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of our
universe; 2. Dark Energy; 3. Dark Matter; 4.The horizon problem;
5.The galactic rotational curve problem; 6. The Pioneer 10 does not
follow the predicted path of the current theories.

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

On the other hand, you have yet to demonstrate that IRT can
make any predictions at all. For example, I have ask you to
use IRT to calculate the time dilation of an earth satellite
clock in a circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an
altitude of 212 km above MSL. You can do it!

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt

On 3/10/11 3:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt



Your "A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s" is bull****.

On 3/10/11 3:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt



GPS satellites are not in low earth orbit, Ralph.

Like I said Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt


The very first GPS satellite was launched with
the "Relativity correction" switched off. The satellite
clock time was transmitted from the satellite to the Earth,
and compared to a clock on the ground.
After 20 days the satellite clock had advanced 764.6 us
more than the ground clock.
GR predicts the clock should have advanced 771.5 us
more than the ground clock, which is equivalent to
an error of 6.9us/(20 days) = 4E-12, which is about
the precision of the clock.

What does the BaTh predict the difference between
the satellite clock and the ground clock should be
after 20 days?

Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
because the photons are accelerated on their way down?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Mar 9, 3:49*am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

* I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
* observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
* relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.

Sense, Henri, in science is determined by agreement with experiment.
There is no requirement that a model fits with your preconceived
notions of how nature *should* work.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:46:13 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:

On Mar 9, 3:49*am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

* I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
* observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
* relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.

Sense, Henri, in science is determined by agreement with experiment.

Correct. That's how big chief Androcles and I proved that light is ballistic.

There is no requirement that a model fits with your preconceived
notions of how nature *should* work.

Nature apparently works just as I say.

http://www.scisite.info/The_new_ball..._of_light.html