IRT Equations for Frequency and Wavelength Shifts of Incoming Light in All Environments

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

This can be tested easily by measuring the the F_ab from a standard
light
source from geosynchroneous satellite. Then use the the measured F_ab
in
the
converted IRT equations to predict the incoming frequency and
wavelength
if
the incoming light from the satellite. If the predicted values agree
with
the measured value then the IRT equations are valid in a gravtational
environments

You use the words "if" and "can", which suggests that these HAVEN'T be
proven to work (at least, not yet)

Hey ****ing idiot runt how do you falsify a theory? Don't you do
experiments
to see if the predictions of the theory agree with experimental results?

Hey ****ing idiot runt .. HAVE there been experiements that show the
predictions of your theory agree // all you say is that it CAN be tested,
not that it HAS been tested.

You have said that IRT is a superset of SR. Well both Poincare and
Einstein prove the group structure of the SR transformations.

The group structure of the SR transformation never been proven. It is
assumed to be the true. Both Poincare and Einstein failed to realize that
group structure is valid only if the unit of measuring space (a meter
length=1/299,792,458 light-second) and time (1 clock second) are universal
constants. Since they are not

Why not .. how do you prove that they aren't in the inertial FoR SR deals
with?

then then Poincare and Einstein are wrong to
apply the math group theory to SR transforma tions.....The passage of an
observer A's clock second corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in B's frame

And vice versa .. nice an symmetric

If SR forms a group, and IRT doesn't, that means that there is
something fundamentally different between them. It also means that IRT
is unsound.

No idiot....group theory in SR is not valid

Why?

and besides there is no real
need or application for it.

If it isn't a group, then you can't do 'math' with it

You do this to a maddening degree - you say either SR and IRT are the
same, OR that IRT is something that SR isn't.

****ing idiot runt....IRT includes SR as a subset.
However, unlike SR, IRT
has an unlimited domain of applicability.
All the IRT eqautions are valid
for use in all environments....including gravity.
IRT also includes the
possibiltiy that the observer's clock can run at a slower rate than the
observed clcok.

So IRT has the constant speed of light in all iFoR?

And in what way is it different to GR (which also has SR as a subset and
works in all environments)

"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

This can be tested easily by measuring the the F_ab from a standard
light
source from geosynchroneous satellite. Then use the the measured F_ab
in
the
converted IRT equations to predict the incoming frequency and
wavelength
if
the incoming light from the satellite. If the predicted values agree
with
the measured value then the IRT equations are valid in a gravtational
environments

You use the words "if" and "can", which suggests that these HAVEN'T be
proven to work (at least, not yet)

Hey ****ing idiot runt how do you falsify a theory? Don't you do
experiments
to see if the predictions of the theory agree with experimental results?

Hey ****ing idiot runt .. HAVE there been experiements that show the
predictions of your theory agree // all you say is that it CAN be tested,
not that it HAS been tested.

You have said that IRT is a superset of SR. Well both Poincare and
Einstein prove the group structure of the SR transformations.

The group structure of the SR transformation never been proven. It is
assumed to be the true. Both Poincare and Einstein failed to realize
that
group structure is valid only if the unit of measuring space (a meter
length=1/299,792,458 light-second) and time (1 clock second) are
universal
constants. Since they are not

Why not .. how do you prove that they aren't in the inertial FoR SR deals
with?

The passage of a clock second in observer A's frame correspond to the
passage of less than a clock second in B's frame. That's why. The SR effect
on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground
clock....that's why. Also there is no such thing as an inertial frame on
earth.

then then Poincare and Einstein are wrong to
apply the math group theory to SR transforma tions.....The passage of an
observer A's clock second corresponds to the passage of less than a
clock
second in B's frame

And vice versa .. nice an symmetric

No that's not symmetric when B's clock is really running slower than A's
clock. If it is symmetric there wouldn't be any difference in the
accumulated clock seconds between the two frames.

If SR forms a group, and IRT doesn't, that means that there is
something fundamentally different between them. It also means that IRT
is unsound.

No idiot....group theory in SR is not valid

Why?

I already told you why.

and besides there is no real
need or application for it.

If it isn't a group, then you can't do 'math' with it

Why? the LT is valid for each observer. There is no need for the group.
Every observer uses the same LT.

You do this to a maddening degree - you say either SR and IRT are the
same, OR that IRT is something that SR isn't.

****ing idiot runt....IRT includes SR as a subset.
However, unlike SR, IRT
has an unlimited domain of applicability.
All the IRT eqautions are valid
for use in all environments....including gravity.
IRT also includes the
possibiltiy that the observer's clock can run at a slower rate than the
observed clcok.

So IRT has the constant speed of light in all iFoR?

In IRT the speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

And in what way is it different to GR (which also has SR as a subset and
works in all environments)

The IRT equations includes both the velocity effect of SR and the
gravitational potential effect in one term. In GR the velocity effect and
the gravitational potential effect are calculated separately and then
combine to give the total GR effect. This means that the IRT equations are
much more simpler.

On May 21, 5:47 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

oups.com...



On May 20, 10:33 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

roups.com...

On May 20, 9:39 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

roups.com...

On May 20, 2:20 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

You _HAVE NOT SHOWN_ that your 'converted' equations are valid.
You
_HAVE NOT SHOWN_ that you can derive your 'converted' equations
from
your postulates. You _HAVE NOT SHOWN_ that your 'converted'
equations
are valid in gravitationally-influenced environments - the
'converted'
equations are from SR, and not valid in GR.

I am not going to argue with an indoctrinated idiot like you. The
IRT
equations are valid for use to replace GR equations.

Much though it pains you, it is up to YOU to prove that your
equations are valid. This means:
1) they follow from your postulates.

It follows from the postulates.

Hmm... no... You have to PROVE that they follow from the postulates.
Just saying "It follows from the postulates" is cheating.

Hey idiot I don't have to prove anything. The first two IRT psotulates are
the same as the SR postulates therefore the math of SR is the math of IRT.
Therefore any experiments or observations that support SR will support IRT.

Wow! Let us apply this _stunning_ logic to other closed axiomatic
systems!

"Hey idiot I don't have to prove anything. The first four Hyperbolic
geometry postulates are the same as the Euclidean geometry postulates
therefore the math of Hyperbolic geometry is the math of Euclidean
geometry. Therefore any experiments or observations that support
Euclidean geometry will support Hyperbolic geometry."

Damn son, that sounds stupid doesn't it?

[...]

On May 21, 11:49 am, "kenseto" wrote:
[....]


The IRT equations includes both the velocity effect of SR and the
gravitational potential effect in one term. In GR the velocity effect and
the gravitational potential effect are calculated separately and then
combine to give the total GR effect. This means that the IRT equations are
much more simpler.

Then calculate a simple GR example using IRT. How about Mercury's
perihelion advance?

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ps.com...
Perhaps you don't realize what is going on. It's very difficult for
most normal people to grasp the depth of the kenseto's stupidity.
None of your arguments will have any effect on him; he is incapable of
following even the simplest logic. Consider for example that he knows
he is incapable of applying his so-called theory to yield any kind of
solution to anything; even a person of extremely poor intellectual
capacity will reallize that a 'theory' that yields no results is
worthless. But the kenseto is incapable of grasping even that. The
fact that he can't show that IRT solves anything, doesn't diminish his
belief that it does. Moreover, any attempt to explain anything to him
will fail; he is incapable of even the most modest learning.

Paul Cardinale

Cardinale is a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. A moron who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows that real SR
experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like gourmet puppy
chow.
An arsehole who will attack anybody who dared to disagree with SR.

What a beautifully effective way of demonstrating the Paul Cardinale was
wrong, by insulting him. Obviously now that we know what a runt is and that
you have proven beyond double that Paul is a runt, everything he said about
you can be safely ignored and you can go on behaving in exactly the same way
as Paul described.

kenseto wrote:
"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ps.com...
Perhaps you don't realize what is going on. It's very difficult for
most normal people to grasp the depth of the kenseto's stupidity.
None of your arguments will have any effect on him; he is incapable of
following even the simplest logic. Consider for example that he knows
he is incapable of applying his so-called theory to yield any kind of
solution to anything; even a person of extremely poor intellectual
capacity will reallize that a 'theory' that yields no results is
worthless. But the kenseto is incapable of grasping even that. The
fact that he can't show that IRT solves anything, doesn't diminish his
belief that it does. Moreover, any attempt to explain anything to him
will fail; he is incapable of even the most modest learning.

Paul Cardinale

Cardinale is a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. A moron who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows that real SR
experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like gourmet puppy chow.
An arsehole who will attack anybody who dared to disagree with SR.

That is the standard canned response from the kenseto when he has been
utterly defeated and is going to skulk away.

Paul Cardinale

On May 21, 6:59 pm, Paul Cardinale wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Perhaps you don't realize what is going on. It's very difficult for
most normal people to grasp the depth of the kenseto's stupidity.
None of your arguments will have any effect on him; he is incapable of
following even the simplest logic. Consider for example that he knows
he is incapable of applying his so-called theory to yield any kind of
solution to anything; even a person of extremely poor intellectual
capacity will reallize that a 'theory' that yields no results is
worthless. But the kenseto is incapable of grasping even that. The
fact that he can't show that IRT solves anything, doesn't diminish his
belief that it does. Moreover, any attempt to explain anything to him
will fail; he is incapable of even the most modest learning.

Paul Cardinale

Cardinale is a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. A moron who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows that real SR
experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like gourmet puppy chow.
An arsehole who will attack anybody who dared to disagree with SR.

That is the standard canned response from the kenseto when he has been
utterly defeated and is going to skulk away.

Paul Cardinale

I really wish Ken seriously responded to my comparison between the
various geometries that share the first four postulates with Euclidean
geometry.

"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

This can be tested easily by measuring the the F_ab from a standard
light
source from geosynchroneous satellite. Then use the the measured F_ab
in
the
converted IRT equations to predict the incoming frequency and
wavelength
if
the incoming light from the satellite. If the predicted values agree
with
the measured value then the IRT equations are valid in a gravtational
environments

You use the words "if" and "can", which suggests that these HAVEN'T be
proven to work (at least, not yet)

Hey ****ing idiot runt how do you falsify a theory? Don't you do
experiments
to see if the predictions of the theory agree with experimental results?

Hey ****ing idiot runt .. HAVE there been experiements that show the
predictions of your theory agree // all you say is that it CAN be tested,
not that it HAS been tested.

Hey ****ing idiot runt of the SRians.....If I have the resources to do these
experiments I wouldn't be here wasting my time talking to idiot like you.

On May 21, 8:49 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 21, 6:59 pm, Paul Cardinale wrote:





kenseto wrote:
"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Perhaps you don't realize what is going on. It's very difficult for
most normal people to grasp the depth of the kenseto's stupidity.
None of your arguments will have any effect on him; he is incapable of
following even the simplest logic. Consider for example that he knows
he is incapable of applying his so-called theory to yield any kind of
solution to anything; even a person of extremely poor intellectual
capacity will reallize that a 'theory' that yields no results is
worthless. But the kenseto is incapable of grasping even that. The
fact that he can't show that IRT solves anything, doesn't diminish his
belief that it does. Moreover, any attempt to explain anything to him
will fail; he is incapable of even the most modest learning.

Paul Cardinale

Cardinale is a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. A moron who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows that real SR
experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like gourmet puppy chow.
An arsehole who will attack anybody who dared to disagree with SR.

That is the standard canned response from the kenseto when he has been
utterly defeated and is going to skulk away.

Paul Cardinale

I really wish Ken seriously responded to my comparison between the
various geometries that share the first four postulates with Euclidean
geometry.

He can't. He isn't able to understand such a comparison. He hasn't a
clue how to respond. All he can do (literally) is cry "runt" then run
away.

Paul Cardinale

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

ROTFLOL....talk about clueless the runt Cardinale failed the Mars Lander
mission. He forgot to convert the English units into the cgs units.


Distraction now Ken?

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.