Why does SRT and LET have identical Math???

In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics. This choice leads to
the same conclusion as LET: That all the clocks moving wrt an SRT observer
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt an SRT observer are contracted
in the direction of motion.

3. Both SRT and LET are incomplete because their math is based on that the
observer is in the absolute rest frame. In real life no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. Different observers are in
different states of absolute motion. This assumption gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). An IRT
observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute motion and that his state
of absolute motion is different than the observed frame's absolute motion.
Therefore he will see some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
Similarly he will see identical moving rods to have longer or shorter light
path lengths than his rod.
IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET, the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" (page
4) in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto



5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
change.

Herewith a mathematical illustration.

If

x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

then, employing what one might consider a lucky guess
(and recalling that 0 v/c 1), one can calculate:

x' + vt' = (x-vt + vt - xv^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= x*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and therefore

x = (x'+vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Another lucky guess yields:

t' + vx'/c^2 = (t-vx/c^2 + vx/c^2 - xv^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and therefore

t = (t' + vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

As one can see, if (x',t') = M(v)(x,t), where M(v)
is the Lorentz, then clearly (x,t) = M(-v)(x',t').

Obviously, the math works.[*]

So now let's revisit the clock problem. A sees B's
clock going slowly (each second of B's clock matches with
1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds of A's clock, as observed by
A using an infinite-speed device) as B is moving +v with
respect to A.

B see's A's clock going slowly, as A is moving -v with
respect to B, since each second of A's clock matches with
1/sqrt(1-(-v)^2/c^2) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds of B's
clock, as observed by B using an infinite-speed device).

More sophisticated calculations will yield that A sees B's
clock ticking at sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) if A and B use
lightwaves to send ticks. B also sees A's clock ticking at
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c). (The reason this expression does
not invert is because A's coordinates, relative to B, are
increasingly negative. If the clocks approach each other,
the expression will flip and each of A and B will observe
the others' clock going fast, using lightspeed. However,
direction makes no difference when using infinite-speed.)

I fail to see the need for IRT's hypothesis that nothing
is at absolute rest, for in SR one could just as easily
take B to be at absolute rest. The main issue is that,
if one needs another observer (C), that one calculates
the relative velocities properly: u = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)
as opposed to u_0=v+w. u_0 is the closing velocity, which
might be somewhat useful but is not the same as u.

- - - - - - - -
[*] Clearly this is *not* physics. Of course, a fair
number of experiments have already been performed here,
validating that certain secondary derivatives of this
math not only work from a pure mathematical standpoint,
but correspond with reality as well.

--
#191,
Insert random misquote here.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

kenseto wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message
ups.com...

kenseto wrote:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that
assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore
he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows
Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute
rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics. This choice leads
to
the same conclusion as LET: That all the clocks moving wrt an SRT
observer
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt an SRT observer are
contracted
in the direction of motion.

3. Both SRT and LET are incomplete because their math is based on that
the
observer is in the absolute rest frame. In real life no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. Different observers are in
different states of absolute motion. This assumption gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). An IRT
observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute motion and that his
state
of absolute motion is different than the observed frame's absolute
motion.
Therefore he will see some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are
running
slow and some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running fast.

This can be immediately seen to be nonsense. In what frame of reference
has there EVER been particle lifetimes SHORTER than at rest? Give even
just ONE example.

Hey idiot.....in the frame of the cosmic muon the muon in the lab has a
shorter lifetime. Now **** off.

I read some of your website. Thanks for the laughs - I haven't laughed
so hard since the "Moops" episode of Seinfeld. You should be writing
material for Michael Richards.

But seriously, your entire "theory" has 5 references, and three of them
are to other web postings by you. One of the other references is to
hyperphysics. If you look at the hyperphysics page, you can see a
problem worked out IN DETAIL, that is virtually identical to that which
you mention, before telling me to **** off.

But, before I **** off, just show me what the lifetime of the rest muon
is in the frame of reference of the cosmic muon. The hyperphysics pages
gives you almost everything - all you need to do is some elementary
Algebra I. The answer will give you a shock.

Don't use profanity with me - I am not impressed by it. You have tried
to impress people by your theory, which is a more proper and productive
way to impress people. Now impress us by doing some elementary algebra
and learning something.




Ken Seto

Similarly he will see identical moving rods to have longer or shorter
light
path lengths than his rod.
IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET,
the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics"
(page
4) in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

In Special Theory of Relativity, the mathematics only requires
knowledge of CALCULUS.
In paper
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES.

Einstein, A. Annalen der Physik, 17 891-921 (1905).
Link ( paper can be downloaded from

http://www.ajayonline.us

Einstein used simple integration and differentiation for calculate
Relativistc form of KE.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message ...
| kenseto wrote:
|
| 2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows Einstein
| to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute rest
| frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics.
|
| That is an outright lie.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - A. Einstein.

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ...
kenseto wrote:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

So what exactly does the term LET mean?

It means that Harry will turn up and say something irrelevant soon.

Dirk Vdm

" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| In Special Theory of Relativity, the mathematics only requires
| knowledge of CALCULUS.


Hahahaha!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...minoEffect.GIF
How many slopes does a constant velocity have?
How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there?

|
| Einstein used simple integration and differentiation for calculate
| Relativistc form of KE.

Hahahaha!
Come back when you have a knowledge of calculus.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that
assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore
he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows
Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute
rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics. This choice leads
to
the same conclusion as LET: That all the clocks moving wrt an SRT
observer
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt an SRT observer are
contracted
in the direction of motion.

3. Both SRT and LET are incomplete because their math is based on that
the
observer is in the absolute rest frame. In real life no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. Different observers are in
different states of absolute motion. This assumption gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). An IRT
observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute motion and that his
state
of absolute motion is different than the observed frame's absolute
motion.
Therefore he will see some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are
running
slow and some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
Similarly he will see identical moving rods to have longer or shorter
light
path lengths than his rod.
IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET,
the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics"
(page
4) in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto



5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
change.

There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's clock
is running fast as follows:
1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
us/day running
slow.
2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7
us/day running
fast.
3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.

Ken Seto

In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that
assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore
he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows
Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute
rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics. This choice leads
to
the same conclusion as LET: That all the clocks moving wrt an SRT
observer
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt an SRT observer are
contracted
in the direction of motion.

3. Both SRT and LET are incomplete because their math is based on that
the
observer is in the absolute rest frame. In real life no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. Different observers are in
different states of absolute motion. This assumption gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). An IRT
observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute motion and that his
state
of absolute motion is different than the observed frame's absolute
motion.
Therefore he will see some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are
running
slow and some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
Similarly he will see identical moving rods to have longer or shorter
light
path lengths than his rod.
IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET,
the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics"
(page
4) in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto



5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
change.

There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's clock
is running fast as follows:
1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
us/day running
slow.
2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7
us/day running
fast.
3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.

You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
to identical clocks on the ground.

The NST-2 effects are as you describe them (except that
they are GR as well), but they are different from the
proposed uniform velocity experiment because the clock is
traversing a circular path, always coming back to a point.


Ken Seto




--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:y4aoh.341693$1i1.296817@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:


There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow.


Seto is wrong again!

Clocks A and B are separated by some non zero distance. There is a
non zero constant velocity between clocks A and B, such that |v| 0
and dv/dt = 0 .

The observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures the clock (B)
running
slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

The observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures the clock (A)
running
slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

Hey idiot assertion is not emperical.
GPS clock is B and ground clock is A:
From A's point of view: The SR effect on B as predicted by A is 7 us/day
running slow.
From B's point of view: The SR effect on A as predicted by B is 7 us/day
running fast.

"kenseto" wrote in message ...

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:y4aoh.341693$1i1.296817@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:


There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow.


Seto is wrong again!

Clocks A and B are separated by some non zero distance. There is a
non zero constant velocity between clocks A and B, such that |v| 0
and dv/dt = 0 .

The observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures the clock (B)
running slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

The observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures the clock (A)
running slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

Hey idiot assertion is not emperical.
GPS clock is B and ground clock is A:
From A's point of view: The SR effect on B as predicted by A is 7 us/day
running slow.
From B's point of view: The SR effect on A as predicted by B is 7 us/day
running fast.

Too bad that the GPS effect cannot be calculated with SR.
I wonder why *anyone* still bothers to exaplain *anything* to
what -no doubt- must be one of the most stupid person on this
planet. Sam, what do you expect from your interactions with
Seto? Honestly?

Dirk Vdm